Bush Proposes 17.5% increase in education spending

Total discretionary funds for 2001:

In millions: 40,124


Total discretionary funds for 2002:

in millions: 48,500


This does not include loans or other outlays which increased by as much as 10%.

Also, Title 1 funding is up by about 20% and Reading Excellence programs are up by a whopping 71%.

But I'm sure the whining liberals here will just say that all Bush is doing "throwing money" at the problems.

BTW, the total budget only grew by 3.7% as proposed. Inflation is less than 3% right now....

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>money does nothing to make kids smarter. the education system wastes the most amount of money.. it's sick. the NYC BOE is disgusting with what they spend money on.

education reform is needed, not money thrown at it.

I'll go on record and say computers were the worst thing ever to happen to K-12</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'll go on record as saying you are wrong. Computers are a valuable resource if used properly.

Also, Bush's primary statements about education indicate he does want reform. You may not agree with the reforms, but he is actually doing something....and that is a big change.

I do agree that many educational systems waste money. I'm in one of them. They are spending $200,000+ on STUDYING a system to implement performance bonuses for buildings in the district that score better on tests. $200,000!!! WTF??? That is just the study!

But, I also know that in PA, one of the better ed. systems in the country as a whole, the share of state funding has decreased thereby placing the burden on the local taxpayer. We need vastly more money from federal and state levels while maintaining local control and reducing the property tax burden. When I close on my home in September, my property taxes will be 1/3 of my mortgage payment each and every month.

BRussell Writes:

[quote]So you're a conservative Republican, right? But you want less local taxes and more federal taxes?


BTW, what ed proposal are you talking about? Can you provide a link? If it's the Kennedy-Bush agreement, Kennedy basically rolled Bush. Bush didn't get most of the reforms he wanted, but Kennedy got basically everything he wanted. <hr></blockquote>

ummm...no. Government spending is out of control on domestic policy. We need cuts in social programs that are going unused....and believe you me, they are out there. Not all to be sure, but many. This will result in more money available for other things, like education. In other words, CUT THE PORK and FAT.

I am talking about the proposed budget for FY2002-2003. Check a news site or maybe the whitehouse site....you can download it. The reading excellence program increase is about 71% from 2001.


applenut writes:

[quote]how so? the only thing they have aided in is research with cd-rom encylopedias and the internet and even at that it has come at the cost of student's reliing only on computer resources for research and not knowing traditional ways of research. <hr></blockquote>

I understand what you are saying. But, I disagree that the only thing they are good for is CD-ROM encylopedias and internet research. There are lots of great math and literature programs. And, for students with certain types of LD, the computers DO assist in writing. I know because my wife is a language arts teacher in a highly respected school that specializes in high intelligence, but learning disabled kids. They benefit enormously! It seems to help with thought organization and eliminates handwriting issues....though I agree they still need to learn how to write! And I don't know about you, but I find the spell checker actually improves my spelling!


Fran441 writes:


[quote]It's too bad that this 'increase' is focussed around giving vouchers for private schools. The money isn't going to public schools, but private schools as well. <hr></blockquote>

You have about zero support for that statement. You just listened to what Bush said and then started drawing conclusions based on what he said he wanted. I am talking about the budget proposal here, not the education reform bill. And, I'm pretty sure the vouchers didn't make it through that bill anyway. In any case, why should a poor family (the people you claim to care about) be forced to send their child to a failing school just because of where they live? And as a teacher, I can tell you that there is no way in hell this will destroy public schools. We need a long term solution, but vouchers are a great idea for now.

tonton writes:

[quote] Looks like those "tax and spend" Republicans are at it again! <hr></blockquote>

Yep! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Falcon writes:

[quote] Explain to me where all this money is comming from. First Bush does a 1.2 or so Trillion tax cut. So my parents can get a lousy $250 in the mail. Wow. Then Bush wants to sevearly increase military spending, and he is pushing for more tax cuts, and now he wants to throw money at schools which does nothing for the education system. Trust me im in the thick of it. <hr></blockquote>

1) 1.2 trillion is miniscule over 10 years. Miniscule! It wasn't big ENOUGH.
2) Your parents should have gotten more if they filed jointly. They had to make enough money, but I assume we are talking a middle class income. Let me ask you, how come my in laws, who make upwards of 100K a year, got only $600 when I ALSO got $600 for my wife and me? We make about HALF that! Is that fair? They paid three times the taxes I did! Why do they get less? In addition, you knwo the rebate idea was a DEMOCRATIC one, don't you? Well, of course it was! Who else would give the same amount of money to two groups, one paying "X" in taxes and the other paying "X*3" in taxes?....yeah, that's fair.

2) Military? Since Clinton cut us back to near Carter-like levels (a full 30% reduction over his term), I would say we need to fix that. I know folks in the military... and their pay increase will be needed and deserved. You have no idea the morale problems that existed when Clinton was around. Because of the cutbacks, our pilots were not even able to fly the minumum number of combat training hours needed. We had training locations running out of ammunition. We have to constantly prepare for a possible war....that is a fact of life. Once one starts, it is too late. And, if Clinton and his crew somehow convinced you the world was getting more peaceful, think again. It is getting worse, not better.

3) Schools ---OMFG! The number one thing Bush says he DOESN"T want to do is throw money at schools. That is what Clinton did!!!!!
Read my first post in the thread.....I knew someone would say this! First, the media tried to portray him as not wanting enough money (during the campaign), now, after proposing a revoutionary national standards system coupled with MORE money, people are syaing that he wants to just "throw money" at the problem. WTF????

I knew this thread would be too much bait for the liberals to stay away from. You just cannot accept that our government is too big, we need the strongest military in the world, and that tax cuts INCREASE revenue over time, not decrease it! You also cannot accept that affirmitave action is inherently racist, the governemnt does not have the right to take 40% of your income every week (and that is just federal taxes!), and government cannot solve every problem.

You see things through a filter. Wake up.

Oh wait...I forgot:

Fran441 writes:

[quote]BTW, welcome to the first budget in 5 years in the red. <hr></blockquote>

1. This is due to the economic downturn and the loss of revenue associated with it.

2. The government shoudl't be allowed to run a surplus. It should be illegal.

3. Clinton DID accomplish the balanced budget, along with the Republican controlled house. But, he did it with the largest tax increase since WWII. Federal spending increased by some 9-13% a year under him. Bush is porposing a 3.7% increase. I wonder what the problem is here? Moron.

4. The federal budget should DECREASE. I don't think Bush went far enough. I would say we need a 10% DECREASE!!!! The government is too goddamn big and wasteful.

I simply can't believe you people. Somehow the Demos have convinced you tax cuts are a bad thing! OMFG!!! Taxes need to go down MUCH more....I say we need another 50% across the board.

Move to Canada or Great Britian while you're at it. You'd be happy there.

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>

I agree that there should be a balanced budget: but that means no surplus AND no deficit. In fact, it should be unconstitutional to have anything other than a blanced budget, just like most states.

Oh, and I see we've been reduced to name calling here. Real nice.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I usually don't like the name calling either....but your positions are ridiculous. Say your philosophy is that we should raise taxes to pay for X, Y and Z, and I'll disgree. Say we don't need a strong military or that it is currently funded well and I'll disagree again. Even say you liked Clinton because he was/is smarter than Bush, and I'll continue to just disagree.

But your positions are not based on any facts. you are just a conservative-hater and bush-basher. I have not heard you say one good thing about conservatives or Bush . Even I, who despised Clinton and think if it wasn't for the economy he would go down as one of the worst presidents in history can say he increased funding for some good programs and, I think, genuinely cared for people. I disagree with what he did in the extreme on almost every issue from taxes to selling out our national security issues to China, to renting out the Lincoln bedroom. But, I'll give him credit for being one smart guy, and one shrewd guy. You are so biased it is absolutely ridculous.

You, as well as others, will criticize anything and everything Bush does just because he's Bush. This thread proves it.

Whatever....