Kerry: More Big Spending Promised

[El Barto]

Kerry Promises Teachers Big Spending (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20040716/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_teachers)

[jokerswild]

simply the truth.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry Promises Teachers Big Spending (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20040716/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_teachers)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is one of the Republican's biggest lies ever perpetuated, the lie that Democrats always spend, spend, spend. I challenge the poster of this thread to provide evidence that ANY Republican administration has had a balanced budget in modern times.

What is so bad with spending for education anyway?

[nothumb]

As an educator who has been fighting for the last year and half to get hired full time in the face of budget cuts at the state and federal levels, spending more on education would be in my best interests as well as those of my students.

NT

[cardcounter0]

Spending on education? The Horror!

Think of the future impact that could have. Where will we get the large mass of uneducated people whose only choice will be to work for Chinese Slave Labor rates? How are we going to compete with the global low-rate labor market if we educate the general population?

Education is for the people whose Daddy's can buy their way into Yale.

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the Republican's biggest lies ever perpetuated, the lie that Democrats always spend, spend, spend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny! Any other jokes?

[adios]

Ok John Cole I believe has stated that the money spent by Bush is directed in an undesirable way. With that said, education spending under Clinton increased 20% total in 8 years at an annualized rate of 2.3%. Much less than GDP growth. Under Bush, in 4 years education spending has increased by a whopping 53% at an annualized rate of 11% which is much higher than GDP growth.

[adios]

So you are in favor of raising taxes and using the money to trim the deficit I take it. However, the Kerry tax proposal won't eliminate the budget deficit, far from it in fact. If you agree that this is true, spending cuts will have to be made irregardless if you want to erase the budget deficit in the next 4 years. Not sure what you'd cut, I would guess the DOD which is a reasonable choice and I believe it's worth debating what the DOD should be like and how it should change.

[nothumb]

sameold,

Your 'sht' is tiresome. This was a substantive post about spending and balanced budgets. Would you care to refute the fact that we operated under massive deficits with Reagan, Bush I, and W, but under Clinton the budget was balanced?

NT

[nothumb]

Where do these numbers come from?

[adios]

Historical Tables - Budget of the United States Government (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf)

I used fiscal 1993-2001 for Clinton's term (I realize it's not accurate to the penny).

I used fiscal 2001-2004 for Bush's term. Fiscal year 2004 is an estimate but we're through about 75% through it.

I posted are overstated slightly for Clinton and slightly understated for Bush since I should have used the fiscal years 1993-2000 for Clinton. It doesn't matter you see my point I believe.

[nothumb]

adios,

The actual spending and the approved budget are two different figures. Congress approved far more for the No Child Left Behind Act than Bush has actually appropriated or spent; in fact, a source of bitter contention in Congress has been Bush's supposed failure to fully fund this bill. I didn't have time to look to closely but I believe these numbers are for approved budgets, not actual spending. If I am in the wrong section you could point me to the page # of your source. I'm at work and don't have a ton of time.

NT

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the Republican's biggest lies ever perpetuated, the lie that Democrats always spend, spend, spend.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was responding too. It truly is funny IMHO.

Apparently, Kerry's own estimates indicate that he'll spend, spend, spend:

[ QUOTE ]
Using the Kerry campaign's data and budget estimates from independent sources such as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to assess the cost of each budget recommendation, the NTUF said the Massachusetts liberal's proposals would add $734.6 billion to the government's bills over five years.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"This leaves $734.62 billion unaccounted for and presumably passed on to American taxpayers in the form of increased taxes or suffocating debt ," the study said.

Source (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040712-121948-6467r.htm)

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
As an educator who has been fighting for the last year and half to get hired full time in the face of budget cuts at the state and federal levels, spending more on education would be in my best interests as well as those of my students.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously NT, I'm not trying to be offensive here. Why do you have to "fight" so hard to get hired full time? If there was a demand for your full time services over the last year and a half, you would have been hired already. Perhaps your getting hired would be in YOUR best interest, but not in the interest of the school if your services aren't required and the budget can't support you. Good luck finding a position.

Yes - smaller classes would be great, but that costs money that comes from taxes. In the extreme, I suppose it would be best for each and every student to be "one-on-one" with a teacher, but obviously that's not reasonable.

In Colorado, our 2003-2004 education budget is 36.5% (!!!) of our total State budget (Source) (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/jbc/03bib.pdf)and the teachers union fights to take more and more of my hard earned money every single election. More than 1/3 of the state budget and test scores keep going down? Apparently, throwing more and more taxpayer dollars at education isn't the solution.

[cardcounter0]

Your confusing money spent on an "education" budget somehow relates to teacher salaries.

If teacher salaries where doubled, would the total education expenditure also double? No.

If the State spent twice as much on "education" would teacher salaries be doubled? No.

He has to "fight" for his teacher's salary, to keep the money budgeted for education to be spent on his salary instead of being spent on more administrators, more special studies, more consultants, or even better landscaping of school campus.

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
Your confusing money spent on an "education" budget somehow relates to teacher salaries.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't follow. Are you suggesting that teachers salaries aren't part of an education budget?

[ QUOTE ]
If teacher salaries where doubled, would the total education expenditure also double? No.


[/ QUOTE ]
No, the education expendituture wouldn't double because the salaries aren't 100% of the budget. There are other costs in the budget as well (books, computers, administration, electricity, etc.). But if teachers salaries were doubled or more teachers like NoThumb were hired, more money would obviously be needed to pay those salaries. So the budget would need to be increased unless spending is reduced in the education budget somewhere else (as if).

[ QUOTE ]
If the State spent twice as much on "education" would teacher salaries be doubled? No.


[/ QUOTE ]
Probably not - it depends how the money is spent. In theory, salaries could be doubled if the entire budget doubled. Again, salaries aren't the entire budget. So if you double the entire budget and double teachers salaries, there would be $$ left over.

[cardcounter0]

Keep going. What percentage of the education budget is actually really teacher salaries?

Kind of like the guy who is filing chapter 11 because he is 10 million dollars in debt, and thinks "Gee, maybe I can solve this problem by buying a cheaper brand of peanut butter."

Or some one upon seeing the guy 10 million dollars in debt remarks, "Of course, he is broke. The idiot always bought the most expensive brand of peanut butter."

I bet if you examine the budget closely you can find some expenditure on a consultant's study or something showing something like "kids who don't go to school don't learn very much" that would cover a reasonable salary increase for all the teachers. Or maybe just a few hundred thousand here and there spent on printing costs for brochures aimed at people who can't read, etc.

[caretaker1]

Very nice table adios. TY

[caretaker1]

I would rather our tax dollars go to education than to subsidize military efforts designed to profit oil and defense companies.

[juanez]

There's more:

Kerry Proposals Boost Spending (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040712-121948-6467r.htm)

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the Republican's biggest lies ever perpetuated, the lie that Democrats always spend, spend, spend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny! Any other jokes?

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a good response (if you are talking to a bunch of Rush Limbaugh-type who-it-alls who don't know whether it's true or not). But, I am talking about FACTS. Why is it that the "conservative" crowd has this type of moronic response when confronted with the history of Democrat vs. Republican spending and deficits?

Since you think that the quote above is so funny, let me ask you this: What recent presidents actually had a balances budget? What presidents had the largest budget deficit?

I don't really expect an intelligent answer. You won't hear the correct answer on the Rush Limbaugh show, so I don't expect that you would know.

[sameoldsht]

Typical liberal scat that's smeared around this forum. Let me see now. It's OK for the lefties here (majority of the posters) to call Conservatives silly names like stupid, moronic, war-monger, etc. but not OK for Conservatives to say anything without the lefties getting their panties in a bunch. So I thought your "dems don't spend, spend, spend" post was funny....I still do. Need a tissue?

Dems don't spend, spend, spend? Are you kidding? Then why do they want to tax, tax, tax? They must need the $$ for something and they seem to make lots of spending promises (why this thread was started to begin with). Yes, Bush has a terrible spending record and I don't like it at all, so don't say "Your guy Bush yadda yadda yadda". I would cut LOTS and LOTS of government programs. Kerry actually proposes to spend approx. $730 billion MORE than Bush - that's Kerry's own budget estimate (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040712-121948-6467r.htm)!! Gimme a break. Since Kerry proposes to spend 3/4 of a trillion more dollars than Bush, I suppose you'll become a Bush supporter?

Let's see, I guess Bush could raise taxes like Clinton did - to the highest level ever in US history except for WWII. You want that again? Sure, raise taxes to the point that we dive into another recession, like the one Bush inherited from Clinton. Cut taxes like Reagan and Bush and corporate tax revenues will soar yet again.

You don't really believe that Clinton/Gore created the internet and the computer revolution, do you? That's why the tech bubble was created and that's the biggest reason for our economic successs in the 90's, not Clinton/Gore or any other slimy politician.

[caretaker1]

The difference is, when Clinton spent, he had the sense to cover the bill.