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....
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....
Comments
Mac Guru
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>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.
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
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.
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.
math? better without computer
english? definitely better without the computer. we are growing up with a generation of spellcheck/MS Word grammar check students... it's sad.
history? read a book. computer don't aid much here
science? hands on and reading about it in a text book is superior than any computer based material I have seen.
of course there are areas where computers off a great advantage but for K-12 and especially for K-6 it is the biggest waste of money ever. Just think of the BILLIONS of dollars spent buying computers only so that they get slow and outdated in three years and need to be replaced and are never used to maximum capability. Then think of the billions that could have been spent on teacher development, school building/remodeling, new text books. new learning materials, etc.
somehow I just don't see how the technology path is the better one
I agree that used properly, technology is great for schools. They also provide a way for those without computers (although there aren't that many any more), and those without internet to utilize the resources online. Also, most schools are now leasing systems rather than buying them. By doing this, upgrades to new machines are cheaper then they have been in the past.
BTW, welcome to the first budget in 5 years in the red.
Republicans
[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: Falcon ]</p>
[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.
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. <hr></blockquote>
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>We SERIOUSLY need to educate our kids... there are WAY to many dumb people walking this earth and polluting life's gene pool. WE NEED MORE SMART PEOPLE!
Mac Guru</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tell me later that you want MORE competition in the job force for that Wal-Mart greeter once your company refuses to pay for retirement medical benefits, and you desperately need that cancer treatment.
<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.
Most people I know would describe me as a Liberal and I can't stand affirmative action.
[quote]
The government shoudl't be allowed to run a surplus. It should be illegal. <hr></blockquote>
Isn't there still a national debt? If not please correct me, but if there is then when did we really run a surplus? Are there not also some pesky IOU's to Social Security?
<strong>Well, I usually don't like the name calling either....but your positions are ridiculous.
...
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow. Go back and read this thread again. You start out the thread talking about "whining liberals," then there's not a single insult against conservatives or Bush, and you come up with this.
Lighten up dude. We're all just a big happy family here who like to argue around the dinner table.
My view is that more emphasis education now means less spending and money wasted later in other areas -- our best investment.
Now, you can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that these checks were just an 'advance' on this year's tax returns, based on estimated returns from the previous year. Therefore, those who make more would get more back after they file their taxes, right? Making it sound like both you and your inlaws get the same amount back in taxes isn't right. I thought you liked 'facts' too.
<strong>Now, you can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that these checks were just an 'advance' on this year's tax returns, based on estimated returns from the previous year. Therefore, those who make more would get more back after they file their taxes, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it was an advance, not an additional cut. But the advance should be the same for everyone making over a certain amount - it applies to everything in the 15% bracket that would change to 10% (up to about $30,000 single, $45,000 married). So if you're a quadzillionaire you'd get the same advance as if you're making $50,000 - I think it was $600.
But if you make less than the full amount up to the cutoff, you'd get something less than the full advance.
The higher rates I believe are phased in - this year they drop maybe a point, and then drop more in the coming years.
<strong>BRussell Writes:
1) 1.2 trillion is miniscule over 10 years. Miniscule! It wasn't big ENOUGH.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah 1.2 trillion dollars that doesn't even exist yet. Based on "projections" made during one of the biggest economic booms in US history. Oh look where is that surplus now? Gone. Tack on a few more hundred billion dollars to the debt. Let's not pay off our credit card bills but keep making the minimum payment, that's smart fiscal policy.
Yay more deficit spending to burden future generations with debt.
I'm all for reduction in the role of the federal government and reduced federal tax burden on citizens. But you can't cut taxes without cutting programs, something Bush and all the rest of the politicians aren't prepared to do. Dems grow the government at 5%, Republicans at 4%. I give the dems credit that at least they aren't hypocritical enough to deny growing the government. We need politicians with real backbones, it's about time we got some 3rd party canidates in there.
<strong>It's funny how the Democrats bitch about the first budget deficit in 5 years, blah, blah, blah. In case nobody remembers, WE ARE FIGHTING A WAR!!! Plus, Clinton got us back in the black by severely compromising out ability to defend ourselves. Our military was getting obsolete and a huge increase in military spending was needed. As for education reform, this is a good start. Bush can't please everybody so his philosophy is to compromise, and this is a good start. Plus, he can't do everything at once, have a little patience people.</strong><hr></blockquote>
just because we are at war doesn't mean we have to run a deficit. the trillion $ tax cut certainly is not needed at a time of war.