US Presidential Election 2004 II

Politics International Politics
201

[quote=“butcher boy”][quote=“pinesay”]

  1. Did Bush “cut” soldiers pay, OR was it a congressional appropriations bill that Bush signed into law along with a “million” other things in the bill? [/quote]

I seem to remeber that one of the GOP strategies is to portray Kerry as a flip flop because of his senate voting record. In order to do this they have to simplify his votes into for spending and against spending; for the war and against the war; increasing spending on the military and against such an increase etc. The fact that the bills often contain ‘a “million” other things’ and many complex issues is ignored. Isn’t this similar?[/quote]

This is why the excutive branch is different from the legislative branch. Bush is showing himself to be somone who is decisive and surrounds himself with people who are also decisive (regardless of whether you like the decisions or not) … executive in nature. Kerry is showing that he wouldn’t do anything different from what he has done in the Senate over the past 20 years (notice now NONE of his presentations really focus on the past 20 years … only on four months in Vietnam). He’s proving that he can’t lead or make unified decisions.

As for the GOP “strategy” of showing Kerry as a flip-flopper, … Excuse me, but the GOP doesn’t have to have a strategy. Kerry is quite capable of himself coming down on both sides of every issue in broad daylight. There really doesn’t need to be a “strategy”. It is just plain obvious. Here are the two latest BIG ONES. How his base lets him get away with it, I don’t know:

  1. Coming down against abortion, but telling the pro-life crowd that he believes life begins at conception. :loco:

  2. Coming down against the war in Iraq, but telling people that he would have reserved the right to go into Iraq without eveidence of WMDs.

This is just too precious! As I’ve always said, liberals have to dress up as conservatives to win elections. Liberals can’t win by being who they are. Kerry can’t say what his base really wants him to say (i.e. the Howard Dean’s of the world). He has to come down on both sides of the issue. This is why Kerry sends out so many surrogates, like Dean and Gore, to say the more explosive stuff to keep the base happy. Then Kerry can distance himself from them, while himself walking a more conservative line … Makes sense to me … Just isn’t the kind of guy I was as the Commander-in-Chief.

202

Of course, previous presidents used to take responsibility for the bills they signed. Why should Bush be different? He’s got a Republican House and Senate, so why should the Republicans evade responsibility for selling out our soldiers? But I guess Republicans have a hard time taking responsibility for these sorts of things…

In the past, the argument would have been that the rate of increase was not actually being cut in real terms – i.e., spending was not keeping up with the rate of inflation, so spending was dropping because the buying power of the allocated money was dropping. However, that doesn’t get Bush off the hook for his hard work to slash government spending on VA hospitals … the exact sort of facilities that will be crowded for the next few decades with the thousands of blind and brain-injured veterans that have been the legacy of the roadside bombs used in this war. (Blast goes upwards, right into the faces, necks, head areas not protected by helmets.)

No, he shouldn’t get credit, and it is the Republicans who are being disingenuous. Bush managed to get a nice bipartisan bill passed and then didn’t fund it … furthermore, his tax cuts left the states stuck with enormous new responsibilities and no funding to meet them. prospect.org/print/V14/5/bennett-d.html has some information about the background and results:

‘Members of Congress had good reason to believe Bush was being sincere. As governor of Texas, he had raised state education spending by 55 percent, tightened curriculum requirements and pushed for more accountability from the schools themselves. Even state test scores shot up – although that was likely the result of the tendency to “teach to the test” rather than an actual increase in learning or knowledge. (The increase wasn’t reflected in national standardized test scores.) Still, Bush was able to persuade the top two education Democrats in Congress, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), to work with him on the No Child Left Behind Act. And when the lawmakers objected to voucher provisions, Bush dropped the vouchers – and toned down the testing measures to win Congress’ approval.

'But in his 2003 budget, Bush proposed funding levels far below what the legislation called for, requesting only $22.1 billion of the $29.2 billion that Congress authorized. For the largest program, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides support to students in impoverished school districts, Bush asked for $11.35 billion out of the $18.5 billion authorized. His 2004 budget was more than $6 billion short of what Congress authorized. Furious, Kennedy called Bush’s proposal a “tin cup budget” that “may provide the resources to test our children, but not enough to teach them.”

'The result: States already strapped by record deficits are being held responsible for the extra testing and administration mandated by law – but aren’t getting nearly enough money to pay for it. So the number of public schools likely to be labeled “failing” by the law is estimated to be as high as 85 percent. Failing triggers sanctions, from technical assistance to requiring public-school choice to “reconstitution” – that is, firing the entire school’s staff and hiring a new one. And Bush isn’t doing much to help. The New Hampshire School Administrators Association calculated that Bush’s plan imposed at least $575 per student in new obligations. His budget, however, provides just $77 per student. It’s a revolution in education policy, all right, but No Child Left Behind was simply a lie.

203

Please can we stop talking about extra funding for education being a good thing. So much money is already wasted in the system. Let’s not pretend that throwing more money at the problem is somehow proof of a commitment to quality education and a remedy to the problem. The problem is that most public school administrations in the US already get US$5,000 per pupil compared with US$1,500 (average cost at parochial usually Catholic) schools. Then in larger urban areas the numbers could be US$7,000 to US$9,000 per pupil which is almost the same as the most expensive private schools. Something is obviously amiss when the same levels of funding are being provided but the results are so different.

First, administrative costs are anywhere from 72 to 76 cents on the dollar in DC. Teacher’s unions never point that out when asking for yet more money which goes to fund studies to study why there is a problem. Naturally, these conferences are held in places such as Hawaii and Miami in January and February. Get the picture?

Also, given the limited ability of certain students to ever learn to a certain level, those with low IQs or the retarded, why continue to throw vast sums at them pretending that they should be educated to the same levels as the best students in the interests of fairness. Would it not be far better to recognize their limitations and try to teach them how to budget, a trade or something appropriate for the lives that they will realistically lead rather than send them through remedial programs to teach them chemistry, physics and algebra?

More money is not the answer and given the teacher’s unions are corrupt and bureaucratic the only realistic solution is more freedom for parents. This should include vouchers and other ways to enable them to pull their children from failing schools.

Finally, the dept of education should be axed. All decisions and funding should be left to the individual states.

204

So, Fred, your answer is that Bush is a great president because he puts the states on the hook for massive expenditures and then refuses to give them any of the money he was supposed to supply. I see it as yet another sign of a fiscally irresponsible rich-boy president who can’t balance his checkbook. Paris Hilton is a paragon of fiscal virtue compared to this guy.

205

Pinesay

you can be infuriating at times. Even fred accepts the vailidity (too some degree) of my argument. But your response does not answer the issue i raised at all. You avoid them with a rant about Bush’s decisiveness. Oh well, didn’t expect you to try anyway.

BTW I think you need to check how you phrase the following

[quote]1. Coming down against abortion, but telling the pro-life crowd that he believes life begins at conception. [/quote] That would seem to be consistent.

206

[quote=“butcher boy”]Pinesay

you can be infuriating at times. Even fred accepts the vailidity (too some degree) of my argument. But your response does not answer the issue i raised at all. You avoid them with a rant about Bush’s decisiveness. Oh well, didn’t expect you to try anyway.[/quote]

I ignore things that I can’t refute, either because (1) I don’t have enough information, (2) It would take me all day to find the information … which would get me little return in this forum, (3) I find arguments not relevant to my original assertion.

What do you want me to say? “OK Butcher Boy, you’re right and I’m wrong” … or “Gee, I didn’t think of that.” … There are a lot of things that I haven’t been exposed to. However, I look a the BIG picture. I can’t get bogged down in details, personally, because if I did, there would be no reason for going on. We’d find so many inconsistences in both Kerry and Bush. I’m looking at what is most important to America’s survival in the in the next few years … and overall I don’t see a plan by the Democrats to treat national security seriously. To them, it is still September 10th.

So, to me it a choice of what is best … Not that Bush is perfect. Not that there aren’t special interests behind Bush. Not that any one of your arguments couldn’t be true. It’s just that given a choice, Bush is the man.

[quote=“butcher boy”]BTW I think you need to check how you phrase the following

Perhaps I’m not seeing it. “Life at conception” is a buzz word used by the pro-lifers as the basis for their moraility based claim that to end the life would be by definition murder. Pro-choicers know this buzz word and its implications to be used primarily as political fodder by pro-lifers. For Kerry to align himself with pro-life statements should confused the heck out of his base.

207

MFGR:

Where did I say Bush was a great president because of his education policies. I support him because of his tax cuts (to forcibly starve the federal government) and his actions in the War on Terror.

I do not support more federal programs. For education, I do not want more money going down the same hole the previous sums went down. I DISAGREE with Bush’s education plan. I want the dept of education axed and all of these decisions made at the state level and funded there. We cannot keep spending money on special education. Mentally retarded people must be taught to learn to live with their disabilities but this ridiculous waste in terms of being “fair” and “equal” is just nonsensical.

We need to put decisions for education where they belong with the parents, schools and teachers directly and give freedom of choice. These need to be as far removed from Washington and its teachers union lobbies and race lobbies and special interest lobbies as far as possible. Only in this way will the students benefit and for that more money is needed.

208

I find Fred Smith’s rant on education sad and bizarre considering he has no children to BE left behind:

Sometimes i just have to rub my eyes after reading your posts. And that’s to dab the tears away.

Don’t you believe that it’s a nice gesture to offer publicly funded programmes for the mentally handicapped and other youngsters who need a break? They’re unfortunate people whom the system could so easily forget all about if it were up to Republicans. It’s also nice that my friend just received a special commendation that was sent in memory of her recently deceased mother’s service as an educator in the public school system for many years. The Republican cuts would have that chalked up as ‘waste’ too, even though it’s something that makes people FEEL good.

But “feelings” aren’t part of the mutant Neocon gene pool, are they?

Why does everything have to be a friggen business? You see how far that gets Americans with health care and medical benefits. What nice gestures are Americans paying for there? Nothing.

209

Explain to me how US$10,000 or US$100,000 per pupil will make any difference in teaching physics, chemistry or advanced math to a special ed student. You may FEEL better about spending the money but where are the practical pay outs. Did I say DON’T educate them? NO. I said be practical about it. The classics, advanced writing classes, etc. etc. are not appropriate for many of these people. Let us teach them what really will make a difference to their lives. Why not?

And this is such a minor issue compared with the fact that 72 to 76 cents on the dollar in DC public schools goes to administrative costs. How do you explain that way in terms of how it helps the “children?” Finally, this also does not take into account private-sector charitable donations and those from foundations. Now when these donations are made, they can be deducted from taxes thus costing the US government even more and substantially raising the true sums of money these schools have available to spend. I used to work in PR at a public school system. I know all the tricks about appealing to the public to spend more money. It is a scam and a lie and if you truly cared about the future of America and the education of its children you would be (ready?) OUTRAGED about this kind of waste.

210

I really meant to post this, but was stopped in my tracks when I read the FS post above.

[quote]
The different camps

Overall, polls show the public remains divided on the issue of Iraq. Peter Feaver, a political scientist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., divides voters into four camps. At opposite ends of the spectrum lie the Bush base, which supports the decision to go to war and believes the US will win, and the “Vietnam syndrome crowd,” which did not support the war and believes the US cannot win.

The battle is over the two camps in the middle: the “noble failure” group, which believes that the decision to invade was right, but that now the war cannot be won, and the “pottery barn” crowd, which did not support the invasion, but believes in the “you break it, you buy it” rule, and feels the US must now succeed.[/quote]

Significantly, the “noble failures” tend to lean toward Bush, but could be swayed to Kerry if he can convince them he would do a better job at getting allies into Iraq, allowing US troops to come home. The “pottery barns” lean toward Kerry, but could be swayed by Bush if they feel he shows more resolve for finishing the job.

From the CS Monitor

Noble failures. Noble?

Then here’s a snippet of an email from my San Francisco friend who recently visited family here in NC:

[b][quote]
It must be that most white people in NC vote republican, because hardly any black folks do, yet the GOP is mopping up in that state. Both of my sisters are Bush supporters, even my crazy sister Susan who lives in a trailer on public assistance. When I asked Susan which party she was registered to vote in, her response was

211

[quote=“fred smith”]

And this is such a minor issue compared with the fact that 72 to 76 cents on the dollar in DC public schools goes to administrative costs. How do you explain that way in terms of how it helps the “children?” Finally, this also does not take into account private-sector charitable donations and those from foundations. Now when these donations are made, they can be deducted from taxes thus costing the US government even more and substantially raising the true sums of money these schools have available to spend. I used to work in PR at a public school system. I know all the tricks about appealing to the public to spend more money. It is a scam and a lie and if you truly cared about the future of America and the education of its children you would be (ready?) OUTRAGED about this kind of waste.[/quote]

There is a great deal of waste in all sectors of public programmes, I agree, but something must be done that does NOT privatize them, and instead consolidates them to run more efficiently. It will take a strong domestic policy president to come up with an EVEN NEWER DEAL one of these days. Too bad there’s always so much arguing so nothing gets done.

However, as much money that may be wasted, good deeds do sometimes trickle out of the (supposedly) 30% of the programme’s funds from time to time. A lot more than if they were extinguished entirely.

But I’m not sure why you’re so offended by THAT waste when the far far far far bigger waste of tax dollars (and lives) is the present administration’s WAR ON TERROR, as you so blindly put it.

212

Word is that Dale Earnhardt Jr. isn’t a big fan of Dubya…took his entire crew to the see F-911. You’d better talk to that crazy sister and help her understand.

'Among the celebrities and media types giving “Fahrenheit 9/11” their endorsements were some unexpected ones. Auto racer Dale Earnhardt Jr., a hero of the NASCAR Bubba set, took his crew to see the movie, then said, "It

213

Let me get this straight. We are supposed to listen to some leftie from San Francisco who comes out to the sticks and is just horrified HORRIFIED at the life she finds there, the prejudice, the ignorance, the lack of sophistication. What has she been watching? Paris Hilton’s jaunt to the countryside? Sounds like she is a bit full of herself. Better for her to stay in San Francisco then lest she dirty herself among the great unwashed.

Given the incredible amount of waste in public education, why not privatize it? What would be the point of continuing along the same failed path?

Wasted money on the War on Terror? What were the stated goals? What has been accomplished?

What are the stated goals of public education as presently run and what has been accomplished in the past 40 years and what has been spent? Is there any positive correlation between spending more money and getting more accomplishments?

214

This statement says it all.

Liberalism defines compassion by how many people get social services. The more assistance provided, the more compassionate a society is. However, in all, it is more about how “they” feel then how the receipient of social services “feels”. In almost all historical examples of liberal social programs, the percentages of “diadvantaged” haven’t improved.

Conservativism defines compassion by how many people don’t need social services. The less assistance needed, the more compassionate a society is. In all, it is more about how the recipient is helped than how I “feel” about myself in assisting. Recent examples of conservative social programs are starting to produce results, like fewer people STAYING on welfare. This is true compassion.

I think Fred’s point is that by taking social services, such as education, and giving more control to local levels, like state governments, communities and parents, more control will be in the hands of the people who actually receive those servies, including those who PAY for those services for other people:

  1. Education would cost less.
  2. Cirrculum would be more about RRR, and not political propaganda.
  3. Parents would have more say.
  4. States would compete against each other, increasing quality.
  5. We would actually be following the US Consitution.
  6. Voters, like me, would have the ability to affect state politcs (especially in California with the ballot initiative).

The localization of many services would put responsiblity back on “real people” making “real decisions” about how to govern their own backyard, insead of socialist social engineers in Washington trying to make everyone equal.

Everyone has feelings. Feelings are a motivator to do good. However, once you start trying to do something based on those feelings, logic and reason must come into play. Otherwise, you keep throwing a nickle in the tin cup of the hobo, AND FEELING soooo GOOOOD about it. You can come by every day and feel good by tossing a nickle in the same cup. It takes guts to actually try to make that person into a productive member of society.

215

Pinesay, liberalism doesn’t define compassion in the way you have. Liberals recognize that basic economics have a supply side and a demand side. There is a spectrum, ranging from far-lefties who want to give the farm away and far-righties who spout nonsense that basically denies the existence of market factors. However, if you go to the average “liberal,” you’ll find something not so easily categorizeable – sophisticated Republicans have been accused by their fellow party members of being closet liberals, but that’s another issue.

Reaching an appropriate balance between the sticks and carrots of life so that government involvement and social costs can be minimized is part of that recognition of the supply AND demand sides. Some people have criticized the old welfare system (one that took Clinton and the Democrats to dismantle…) as being a very cynical effort to distribute just enough money out to the nation’s poor so that they wouldn’t rise up and cause far greater damage through riots. Those critics may have a good point.

However, sometimes the Republicans, in their ignorance of basic economics, seem absolutely determined to follow everything only on the supply side. War on Drugs? Gotta hand down massive punishments without regard to the quite-considerable demand aspects of the problem. War on Crime? Three strikes and you’re out… even if that clogs the prisons with dumb shoplifters. War on Terror? We gotta blow up terrorists (and wedding parties, and kids, and so on) with no regard to how new people get recruited into the terror organizations. It sure feels nice to be “tough” on everything in the short term, but it’s dumb to do it in ways that are penny smart and pound foolish.

Frankly, having seen how the privatization of the military has gone so far, with Kellogg Brown & Root failing to provide the troops with food and body armor, overcharging the U.S. for fuel every chance they get, doing crony business (as a subsidiary of Halliburton) on a no-bid basis, etc., I am not so confident in the private sector’s ability to do a good job in ensuring the schools are better or more efficient in turning out the American workers, scientists and soldiers of tomorrow. Having seen how private contractors have been intertwined with the Abu Ghraib scandal, I am not terribly confident in their oversight. Having seen how most of the private schools in many communities are loaded up with touchy-feely priests, I think my kids can do without.

216

Wanna talk about how the teacher’s unions and their leaders are looting public funds for public education? I could really supply some good ones on that.

Has it been proved yet that Halliburton and other companies are in fact looting the American treasury for overinflated military services supply bills? I recall that one case against Halliburton was dropped though you are forgiven for not remembering this for all the media play it received, when it proved that it paid higher prices for oil because it went through a Kuwaiti middleman who pocketed all the money. The only person who could supply this gas was him and he benefited from it disproportionately.

Now, the other case was for soldier’s meals that were not eaten. But this happens everywhere. If you make a reservation for 1,000 for dinner but only 950 show up, guess how many you still have to pay for? 1,000! My God! Attack every convention center or large hotel in the United States immediately!!! Corruption!!! Fraud!!! Outrage!!!

217

Interesting … So, in your would view, “mainstream liberals” take both sides of supply and demand into consideration. They are educated well in economics and ballance everything fairly to take into consideration the carrots and sticks of life. “Mainstream conservatives” on the other hand only take supply side into consideration no matter what they attempt in life, like trying to beat a round peg through a square hole, because they are not educated in economics and are only concerned about cronyism.

Sounds like you have everything under control. As you were. :unamused:

Oh yea, one more thing …

I’ve decided to home school my child when the time comes with a combination of teaching by myself, my parents, my wife and tutors for subjects that we are not qualified in. Since I am self-employed, I could be flexible in time with my child in field trips and application-based learning, nuking the theory that my child will grow up with three heads because they didn’t get to go to the prom. I can do all this even though my salary for the past few years is nearly in the poverty level.

This makes many (not all) on the left uneasy. Many don’t think that I should have that right. Many groups have tried to make it illegal. Why do you think this is the case? Would I not do a better job with less of YOUR money. I suggest that most of the angst from the left is based on what Fred is talking about. There is huge corrupt special interest in education.

218

Outside of wealthy suburbs, most school teachers don’t make a lot. Even then, they’re hardly “looting” anyone. In one state where I lived, the teachers were quite recently getting US$12,000 per year from the town plus $7,000 from the state. But when you talk about teacher’s unions, you’re also talking about the free market for labor and services. You got a problem with the free market? You some kinda commie? Everybody’s disposable on a one-to-one basis, and a company can abuse the crap out of people when they’re just individuals. Individuals are free to band together, reach reasonable solutions, determine what they want and get it. Funny looking at it now, but the rise of unions and the ability of workers to stick up for themselves probably was a key factor in our country being such a bulwark against the commies.

Halliburton dining halls are not the end of it… KBR didn’t get the men their food, their water, their armor plates, their night-vision goggles, and so on and so on… If there was even a bit of accountability for what was going on in this war, Rumsfeld would have been hanged.

Funny that you raise the idea of meals not being eaten as if that was really the problem. To the extent that possibly could be a problem, it reflects the casualty rate, wounded and dead, of this war. So, what happens when the Bush Administration lies to the American people to get them into a crap war and every day there are 50 fewer soldiers showing up for their “dinner reservations” (as you apparently think of these men and women)? At what point does the Bush administration finally start to take a little responsibility?

Harry S Truman had a sign on his desk that stated, quite appropriately, “The Buck Stops Here.” Let’s see a little truth and accountability from these Bushies.

219

Explain to me why educators need unions any more than other workers? And even with unions, where’s the competition? Right now, government workers unions and teachers unions are the most damaging to “free and fair” trade if you want to look at it that way. While many teachers make very little it is true, many programs are very well funded. Perhaps then it is time to decide how to redistribute those funds rather than always asking for more? If so, you have just signed onto the Republican approach prior to Bush and his lavish spending on wasteful education programs.

220

a union is nothing but a monopoly on the labor side of the equation. most employees who start jobs in unionized industries are required to join the union and pay union dues. unions are distortions of the free market in much the same way that other monopolies are distortions of the free market.