Republicans are digging their own grave.

[theeedude]

We don't need no stinking education, we'll just give out H1B visas. Why should we pay to educate Americans when we can just import some educated Indians and Chinese and have those countries pay to teach them And when they go back home and take our know-how and industries with them, well, at least we saved some money on student loans so that millionaires could make ends meet with a new tax cut.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

$40 million from the National Cancer Institute

1.4 million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer this year and over half a million will die . . . THIS YEAR.

$11 million from the diabetes institute

Over 1/4 of the people in MS are obese (which often leads to diabetes). 10% of AL adults already have diabetes.

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome in adolescents has increased 50% in the last decade.

To be eliminated:

Universal newborn hearing screening, a $10 million program that helps states provide those tests for poor families, usually administering them before babies leave the hospital. Detecting hearing loss early helps ensure that babies get appropriate services so they learn and develop properly.

What kind of brain dead arsehole doesn't understand the value of early detection of sensory deficits?!

The largest study of U.S. children ever performed. In January, mothers-to-be were to begin enrolling in the National Children's Study to track 100,000 children from mothers' wombs to age 21 to see how the environment ? everything from mother's diet to toddler TV to pollution ? influences child health. Scientists hoped the first births in the study would point toward some preventable causes of such problems as premature birth, asthma and autism. Ordered by Congress and supported by both medical groups and the chemical industry, scientists already have spent $60 million in tax dollars preparing the study, with waiting lists of families hoping to participate.

Yep, who cares about the future . . . we know everything that's worth knowing . . . tax cuts good, bombs good, big bombs better.

Bush sux. You people that voted for him are ridiculous. He's a fiscal disaster but even the programs that get money (DOD) aren't exactly success stories. I'm sure you will claim Afghanistan but nobody cares. Hell, they are protesting outside Baghram right now b/c of a cartoon most Americans have never seen.

Let's look at the Bush record:

Medicare: epic disaster before Bush . . . now is a miniseries with infinite renewals
SS: padded US coffers before Bush . . . now it just makes Bush deficits look less terrible
Afghanistan: world's opium wholesaler run by warloards . . . now it's a "democratic" opium wholesaler run by warlords
Iraq: Oh . . . let me count the ways
Department of Education: underfunded . . . underfunded and meddlesome
Department of Justice: nation's law enforcement . . . Bush junta playground
integrity: not bad as long as we aren't talking about Bill . . . MIA

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

That arsehole President spent an earlier SOTU talking about community health centers and preventive medicine.

What did he put in his friggin' budget? Cuts in community health centers and preventive medicine!

I hate Bush policies so much I think I'm going to go outside and kick a bush. I figure if that's going to be our nation's foreign and domestic policy I might as well join in.

 

[stinkz]

Originally posted by: tec699
Bush's spending plan

The moderate Republicans have to be worried because come election time they are going to take the full brunt of Bush's choice to cut education, meidcare/medicade and health agencies.

All of these choices and many more are going to start to affect the majority of people who vote: THE MIDDLE CLASS! The middle class is going to start to ask why is their lifestyle declinging while we are spending billions of dollars in other countries? This is the exact same thing that happened to Bush's father. Ignore the domestic issues that face this country and it will come back to bite you.


:|

I can't think of anything better to cut. Socialized medicine and education are bad ideas.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Genx87
At the same time it is very possible the huge inflation in tuition rates will slow due to a smaller amount of people with cashin hand to pay for an education. The end result being tuition rates stay within the grasp of middle America.

And we breed more poverty, ignorance and crime. Education has so many long term benefits that the costs of any of the spending are worth more than any other spending on crime and poverty.

Bush's budget proposal is a disaster. Huge cuts to infrastructure spending (which provides wheels to our economy), huge reductions in education. Although I might agree with the medicare and medicade cuts, they will likely raise healthcare costs for everyone by making medicare and medicaide even less attractive to doctors. Not to mention that the cuts will be the branding iron of death to any congress critter that tries to approve them. I predict a quick death to Bush's budget proposal, I just hope NONE of his stupid ass cuts make it into the budget.

You cant deny tuition rates have skyrockets to the point where many middle class families without help cant afford to go to a University. Many people believe this is due to a large amount of willing applicants flooding the market. Like any open market with an excess of demand the costs go up.

And an education doesnt automatically guarantee crime, ignorance, and poverty will go away. You are simply moving the goalposts forward. 100 years ago a highschool education was a big deal and a college degree a gurantee high end position. Today a Masters is required for a high end position while a BA is almost standard and may or may not even get you a paying job worth the cost of the education. A highschool education is near worthless except to say you graduated.

The same can be said of Medicaid and Medicare. An excess of money from a subsidized program could very well be part of the problem of the massive rise in healthcare costs.

When you interject a govt program into a free market it can cause problems due to the very nature of a govt subsidy. Most subsidies dont reside within the bounds of the very market they are in and thus throw the market off.

Imagine tomorrow of we didnt have the tax payers to pay for the above an instead of using the above they simply stayed at home? The drop in demand could cause both to reduce their rates to attract more customers.

And thanks to the new budget, it will now be even harder. What fixes it, more TAX CUTS!!

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: tec699
Bush's spending plan

The moderate Republicans have to be worried because come election time they are going to take the full brunt of Bush's choice to cut education, meidcare/medicade and health agencies.

All of these choices and many more are going to start to affect the majority of people who vote: THE MIDDLE CLASS! The middle class is going to start to ask why is their lifestyle declinging while we are spending billions of dollars in other countries? This is the exact same thing that happened to Bush's father. Ignore the domestic issues that face this country and it will come back to bite you.


:|

I can't think of anything better to cut. Socialized medicine and education are bad ideas.

Yeah, student loans and medicine for the poor are terrible ideas :roll:

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dullard
For more of my thoughts, see my P&N 2007 budget thread.

Originally posted by: charrison
This is only a reduction in growth, not a cut. I am sure the same is true for education.

141 programs are proposed to get significant cuts and/or being eliminated. Eliminating a program is not "only a reduction in growth". Forty two of those terminated programs are in education. I'll present some examples.

Program: 2006 budget, 2007 budget
Total outlays for all programs: $83.9B, $64.5B
[*]Safe and Drug Free Schools Programs: $569M, $216M
[*]TRIO Upward Bound: $311M, $0
[*]TRIO Talent Search: $145M, $0
[*]GEAR UP: $303M, $0
[*]Perkins Loans Cancellations (for teachers in areas of greatest need, 20% can be cancelled each year): $65M, $0
[*]Federal Direct Student Loans: $4,791M, $63M
[*]Federal Family Education Loans: $18,245M, $5,340M

Cutting things may be good. I cannot comment on all the programs since I don't know their details. But I do know that up until now, ANYONE who wanted to go to college could afford to go to school with the student loans. Say goodbye to that era. That will have a drastic impact on many poor/lower middle class children. They may no longer have any ability to go to college and get out of their welfare status.

At the same time it is very possible the huge inflation in tuition rates will slow due to a smaller amount of people with cashin hand to pay for an education. The end result being tuition rates stay within the grasp of middle America.

Wow. I am really impressed. Bushspeak!
"If people have less money to spend on college its a good thing becuase college costs will come down!!"
And lets not forget that if Americans have less money for food, heat and necessities the prices for those items will come down?
Yippeee. Bush has fixed everything. If we have less money we will be able to buy more!!
NOT

 

[stinkz]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: tec699
Bush's spending plan

The moderate Republicans have to be worried because come election time they are going to take the full brunt of Bush's choice to cut education, meidcare/medicade and health agencies.

All of these choices and many more are going to start to affect the majority of people who vote: THE MIDDLE CLASS! The middle class is going to start to ask why is their lifestyle declinging while we are spending billions of dollars in other countries? This is the exact same thing that happened to Bush's father. Ignore the domestic issues that face this country and it will come back to bite you.


:|

I can't think of anything better to cut. Socialized medicine and education are bad ideas.

Yeah, student loans and medicine for the poor are terrible ideas :roll:

Why not say food as well? Shouldn't the poor get food? Perhaps we should tax the rich and use the money to feed the poor. Wait... that would be surprisingly like communism. In all industries, capitalism produces the most benefit for all, including the poor.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: tec699
Bush's spending plan

The moderate Republicans have to be worried because come election time they are going to take the full brunt of Bush's choice to cut education, meidcare/medicade and health agencies.

All of these choices and many more are going to start to affect the majority of people who vote: THE MIDDLE CLASS! The middle class is going to start to ask why is their lifestyle declinging while we are spending billions of dollars in other countries? This is the exact same thing that happened to Bush's father. Ignore the domestic issues that face this country and it will come back to bite you.


:|

I can't think of anything better to cut. Socialized medicine and education are bad ideas.

Yeah, student loans and medicine for the poor are terrible ideas :roll:

Why not say food as well? Shouldn't the poor get food? Perhaps we should tax the rich and use the money to feed the poor. Wait... that would be surprisingly like communism. In all industries, capitalism produces the most benefit for all, including the poor.

So there is no hunger in capitalist economies? Of course we should feed the poor if they are malnourised. Why is this even being debated?

 

[Lemon law]

One thing stands out in this budgit------huge defense increases-----in a new world where heavy expensive
weapons systems are no longer useful-------but Bush has picked fights in so many places where a wiser person would not-----these expendatures are now necessary to protect Bush from world wrath.

Can anyone remember the time just six short years ago when we actually were generating a slight Federal surplus.------before Bush and his neo-con ideas hi-jacked the Republican party. And the Republicans were the party of fiscal sanity, honest government, and small government.

One can say but 911 changed everything------yes we lost some people and infrastructure-----but has the hurt of 911 been worth this over reaction by Bush&co.-------who seems bent on picking fights with everyone and setting up a situation where its the USA vs. the rest of the world?-------if anything we have more enemies now than we did before 911-------and there has never been a period in world history where one nation so dominated and there was no balance of power-----the belligerant bully tactics of Bush will only result in unsustainable defense spending------with cuts everywhere else and an increase in the defecit as well.

 

[stinkz]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: tec699
Bush's spending plan

The moderate Republicans have to be worried because come election time they are going to take the full brunt of Bush's choice to cut education, meidcare/medicade and health agencies.

All of these choices and many more are going to start to affect the majority of people who vote: THE MIDDLE CLASS! The middle class is going to start to ask why is their lifestyle declinging while we are spending billions of dollars in other countries? This is the exact same thing that happened to Bush's father. Ignore the domestic issues that face this country and it will come back to bite you.


:|

I can't think of anything better to cut. Socialized medicine and education are bad ideas.

Yeah, student loans and medicine for the poor are terrible ideas :roll:

Why not say food as well? Shouldn't the poor get food? Perhaps we should tax the rich and use the money to feed the poor. Wait... that would be surprisingly like communism. In all industries, capitalism produces the most benefit for all, including the poor.

So there is no hunger in capitalist economies? Of course we should feed the poor if they are malnourised. Why is this even being debated?

Yes there is still hunger, but Wal-Mart has done more to help the poor than any government handout program.

Yes, WE should feed the poor, through charity. But the government should not.

 

[raildogg]

Who cares? Both parties suck.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And the Republicans were the party of fiscal sanity, honest government, and small government.

That hasn't been true for a half century.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: tec699
Bush's spending plan

The moderate Republicans have to be worried because come election time they are going to take the full brunt of Bush's choice to cut education, meidcare/medicade and health agencies.

All of these choices and many more are going to start to affect the majority of people who vote: THE MIDDLE CLASS! The middle class is going to start to ask why is their lifestyle declinging while we are spending billions of dollars in other countries? This is the exact same thing that happened to Bush's father. Ignore the domestic issues that face this country and it will come back to bite you.


:|

I can't think of anything better to cut. Socialized medicine and education are bad ideas.

Yeah, student loans and medicine for the poor are terrible ideas :roll:

Why not say food as well? Shouldn't the poor get food? Perhaps we should tax the rich and use the money to feed the poor. Wait... that would be surprisingly like communism. In all industries, capitalism produces the most benefit for all, including the poor.

So there is no hunger in capitalist economies? Of course we should feed the poor if they are malnourised. Why is this even being debated?

Yes there is still hunger, but Wal-Mart has done more to help the poor than any government handout program.

Yes, WE should feed the poor, through charity. But the government should not.

So if no charity feeds a person, the government should just say, oh well, let him starve to death? Government handout programs like say college grants and subsidized student loans have done a lot more to help the poor than walmart. If you were ever poor yourself, you would know that.

 

[sandorski]

As a Canadian, I hope my Government requires future University Grads whose Education is paid with Student Loans and other Government financing requires the Grads to stay in the country for X years before being allowed to seek work outside. The US already has a Talent Deficit and has for a long time, these proposals will just make it worse and I can foresee the US recruitment drive of Foreign Talent expanding far beyond what it is now.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: tec699
Bush's spending plan

The moderate Republicans have to be worried because come election time they are going to take the full brunt of Bush's choice to cut education, meidcare/medicade and health agencies.

All of these choices and many more are going to start to affect the majority of people who vote: THE MIDDLE CLASS! The middle class is going to start to ask why is their lifestyle declinging while we are spending billions of dollars in other countries? This is the exact same thing that happened to Bush's father. Ignore the domestic issues that face this country and it will come back to bite you.


:|

I can't think of anything better to cut. Socialized medicine and education are bad ideas.

Yeah, student loans and medicine for the poor are terrible ideas :roll:

Why not say food as well? Shouldn't the poor get food? Perhaps we should tax the rich and use the money to feed the poor. Wait... that would be surprisingly like communism. In all industries, capitalism produces the most benefit for all, including the poor.

So there is no hunger in capitalist economies? Of course we should feed the poor if they are malnourised. Why is this even being debated?

Yes there is still hunger, but Wal-Mart has done more to help the poor than any government handout program.

Yes, WE should feed the poor, through charity. But the government should not.

So if no charity feeds a person, the government should just say, oh well, let him starve to death? Government handout programs like say college grants and subsidized student loans have done a lot more to help the poor than walmart. If you were ever poor yourself, you would know that.

Let them eat cake.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: sandorski
As a Canadian, I hope my Government requires future University Grads whose Education is paid with Student Loans and other Government financing requires the Grads to stay in the country for X years before being allowed to seek work outside. The US already has a Talent Deficit and has for a long time, these proposals will just make it worse and I can foresee the US recruitment drive of Foreign Talent expanding far beyond what it is now.

You aren't ever going to stop the brain drain. If it wasn't the US it would be somewhere else. Canada just doesn't have the industrial or tech base to support the grads and won't until it reaches the population size of the US. Canada's entire population is smaller than many of our states. So either start having 8 kids each or raise your immigration limits (which would flood you with poor people).

 

[stinkz]

Originally posted by: senseamp

So if no charity feeds a person, the government should just say, oh well, let him starve to death? Government handout programs like say college grants and subsidized student loans have done a lot more to help the poor than walmart. If you were ever poor yourself, you would know that.

I'm not going to turn this thread into a debate over whether capitalism (keeping your tax money and doing with it as you see fit) or socialism (giving your money to the government and the government distributing it back to you as it sees fit, through grants, etc...) produces more opportunities for the poor. The poor flocking to the most capitalist country in the world, hailing it as the "land of opportunity" speak for themselves.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Wasn't there another country that spent everything it had on defense at the expense of all of it's social programs while accumulating massive defecits in the 1980s? I wonder how that worked out for that other country and it's people?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: sandorski
As a Canadian, I hope my Government requires future University Grads whose Education is paid with Student Loans and other Government financing requires the Grads to stay in the country for X years before being allowed to seek work outside. The US already has a Talent Deficit and has for a long time, these proposals will just make it worse and I can foresee the US recruitment drive of Foreign Talent expanding far beyond what it is now.

You aren't ever going to stop the brain drain. If it wasn't the US it would be somewhere else. Canada just doesn't have the industrial or tech base to support the grads and won't until it reaches the population size of the US. Canada's entire population is smaller than many of our states. So either start having 8 kids each or raise your immigration limits (which would flood you with poor people).

In many ways that's true, especially for certain fields of work/study. More specifically the field I should have specifically identified is in Medicine/HealthCare. In recent years the Brain Drain from these fields has almost slowed to a stop and many recent reports show that it may have reversed, but I can imagine that the US HealthCare providers are going to up the Ante if the shortage of US Grads decreases further in the HealthCare field. I don't think Canadians should end up subsidizing US Industry in this way.

OTOH, I do have reservations in making the requirements as I suggested. It touches on Freedom in such a way that makes me somewhat squeamish.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by: senseamp

So if no charity feeds a person, the government should just say, oh well, let him starve to death? Government handout programs like say college grants and subsidized student loans have done a lot more to help the poor than walmart. If you were ever poor yourself, you would know that.

I'm not going to turn this thread into a debate over whether capitalism (keeping your tax money and doing with it as you see fit) or socialism (giving your money to the government and the government distributing it back to you as it sees fit, through grants, etc...) produces more opportunities for the poor. The poor flocking to the most capitalist country in the world, hailing it as the "land of opportunity" speak for themselves.

Of course you are not going to debate, since you have an argument to stand on.
If you are sick and malnourished, you aren't going to be taking advantage of many opportunities. Even capitalism needs a social safety net. You can't ask people to take risks in a capitalist system, if you don't provide a safety net to help them if they fall on hard time.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I don't think Canadians should end up subsidizing US Industry in this way.

It's the free market, the only reason Healthcare workers has slowed is you probably have a shortage that has resulted in increased wages, but everyone has a shortage so I'm sure it will eb and flow as wages continue upwards. And you shouldn't worry much about the brain drain. I bet a good percentage return after retirement for the free healthcare.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Wasn't there another country that spent everything it had on defense at the expense of all of it's social programs while accumulating massive defecits in the 1980s? I wonder how that worked out for that other country and it's people?

Actually, we spend more on social programs such as SS, medicare, and welfare than we do on defense.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dullard
For more of my thoughts, see my P&N 2007 budget thread.

Originally posted by: charrison
This is only a reduction in growth, not a cut. I am sure the same is true for education.

141 programs are proposed to get significant cuts and/or being eliminated. Eliminating a program is not "only a reduction in growth". Forty two of those terminated programs are in education. I'll present some examples.

Program: 2006 budget, 2007 budget
Total outlays for all programs: $83.9B, $64.5B
[*]Safe and Drug Free Schools Programs: $569M, $216M
[*]TRIO Upward Bound: $311M, $0
[*]TRIO Talent Search: $145M, $0
[*]GEAR UP: $303M, $0
[*]Perkins Loans Cancellations (for teachers in areas of greatest need, 20% can be cancelled each year): $65M, $0
[*]Federal Direct Student Loans: $4,791M, $63M
[*]Federal Family Education Loans: $18,245M, $5,340M

Cutting things may be good. I cannot comment on all the programs since I don't know their details. But I do know that up until now, ANYONE who wanted to go to college could afford to go to school with the student loans. Say goodbye to that era. That will have a drastic impact on many poor/lower middle class children. They may no longer have any ability to go to college and get out of their welfare status.

I think your numbers are bit misleading on the student loan programs. The "cuts" occur over a period of 5 years, not one year as you are suggesting. Also the student loan volume will not be reduced only the amount amount of interest the fed is going to subsidize.

 

[Jhhnn]

From charrison-

"Also the student loan volume will not be reduced only the amount amount of interest the fed is going to subsidize. "

And I thought you were a student of economics... when the price goes up, the demand goes down... at least in the real world.