Atlanta Beltline - Page 15

dante2308 · #**281** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:08 AM**

Anyway, social security is for people who are past the retirement age and shouldn't be working. I don't have an opinion about that, but I would hope you would not include that in your war against poverty or whatnot. Medicare is the same so one wonders what part of the budget is actually welfare and education.

Fiorenza · #**282** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:09 AM**

I was just pointing out the fact that the education budget had increased by $25 billion, not decreased as you said.

dante2308 · #**283** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

I was just pointing out the fact that the education budget had increased, not decreased as you said.

I said the portion had decreased.

Quote:

lets start by raising the education portion of the budget up to pre-Bush levels

I wasn't wrong.

Now, lets really examine the Bush effect here. Notice any spikes? Weird, Clinton's time was about level but Bush rose the federal budget the most proportionately in modern history. Why is it you are Republican?

* United States federal budget, 2009 - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
* United States federal budget, 2008 - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
* United States federal budget, 2007 - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
* United States federal budget, 2006 - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
* United States federal budget, 2005 - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
* United States federal budget, 2004 - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
* United States federal budget, 2003 - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
* United States federal budget, 2002 - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
* United States federal budget, 2001 - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
* United States federal budget, 2000 - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
* United States federal budget, 1999 - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
* United States federal budget, 1998 - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
* United States federal budget, 1997 - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
* United States federal budget, 1996 - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

credit- wikipedia

Notice any unprecedented drops? The last time that the wealth growth was so bad would be... Bush I, then Ford, then Nixon...

Fiorenza · #**284** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:23 AM**

Amazing, isn't it? Are you aware the federal education budget only increased by $10 billion during Clinton's term?

dante2308 · #**285** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Amazing, isn't it? Are you aware the federal education budget only increased by $10 billion during Clinton's term?

Sadly, that is actually better proportionwise. Remember the word surplus? One wonders how the economy can grow with low spending and a surplus during a democratic reign and suffer two recessions and deficit with high spending during a republican reign.

Fiorenza · #**286** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:26 AM**

To the extent Bush II was responsible for a drop in household wealth, it's due to the increase in government as percent of GNP. But there are other factors, including the globalism effect.

Fiorenza · #**287** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:29 AM**

Quote:

Sadly, that is actually better when Bush inflation and out of control spending is factored in.

Your argument was that Bush had decreased education spending as a percent of the federal budget. In 8 years Clinton's budget increased $10 billion. In the 7 years of Bush's term so far, his education budget increased $25 million.

dante2308 · #**288** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

To the extent Bush II was responsible for a drop in household wealth, it's due to the increase in government as percent of GNP. But there are other factors, including the globalism effect.

You think globalization hit yesterday? No it is only during this administration that we couldn't compete well anymore. I can't think of a single new technology that defines this decade.

dante2308 · #**289** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Your argument was that Bush had decreased education spending as a percent of the federal budget. In 8 years Clinton's budget increased $10 billion. In the 7 years of Bush's term so far, his education budget increased $25 million.

I have not seen this 10 billion figure. Would you link it to me? Also Bush cut education spending in 2006 and the proportion has fallen below the Clinton level. The problem isn't the rise in dollar value, it is the percentage of our budget commitment.

Fiorenza · #**290** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:32 AM**

So you blame globalism on Bush?

Fiorenza · #**291** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:33 AM**

here you go

dante2308 · #**292** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

So you blame globalism on Bush?

What? I am saying globalism hit many decades ago and somehow thats me blaming Bush? Globalism isn't a bad thing or even a new thing. It only hurts when the state of our economy is in shambles the way it is.

Fiorenza · #**293** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:39 AM**

Agreed, our economy is in shambles and globalism is only one factor. Other factors: AFL-CIO, UAW, high cost of government (federal, state, local), poor corporate governance and accountability, poor lending practices, low savings rate, dumbing-down of education.

We are our own worst enemy.

dante2308 · #**294** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

here you go

Thank you. Clinton had a habit of cutting the budget there. Bush raised the budget a bunch, but it seems like he did that to every budget when you consider the cost of government now. I know that you are a strong supporter of Bush, but I would ask you to explain the benefits of high government spending.

As for education, I concede. I was aware that the proportion had decreased and I was not aware the totals had so far increased. Now there is a larger problem at stake.

dante2308 · #**295** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Agreed, our economy is in shambles and globalism is only one factor. Other factors: AFL-CIO, UAW, high cost of government (federal, state, local), poor corporate governance and accountability, poor lending practices, low savings rate, dumbing-down of education.

We are our own worst enemy.

We agree! Except, most of that is actually under the jurisdiction of our governmental leadership. I also don't disagree with labor unions as a concept. I really wouldn't blame them for a weak economy considering the work they do to elevate the decency of our work environment which attracts skilled foreign workers.

Fiorenza · #**296** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:45 AM**

Quote:

I know that you are a strong supporter of Bush, but I would ask you to explain the benefits of high government spending.

Bush, like Reagan had a problem with out of control spending. Reagan had an excuse - he had to work with a Democratic congress. Unfortunately Bush didn't have enough leadership ability to control spending while he had a GOP majority in congress. I think a lot of fiscal conservatives are disgusted with the GOP performance in regard to spending.

Fiorenza · #**297** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:49 AM**

Quote:

I really wouldn't blame them for a weak economy considering

Union wage scales have driven hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs offshore. Ford just announced they are closing more US facilities and moving the majority of their production to Mexico and other offshore locations. The UAW is upset. They thought they had a deal.

dante2308 · #**298** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Bush, like Reagan had a problem with out of control spending. Reagan had an excuse - he had to work with a Democratic congress. Unfortunately Bush didn't have enough leadership ability to control spending while he had a GOP majority in congress. I think a lot of fiscal conservatives are disgusted with the GOP performance in regard to spending.

How is McCain different?

dante2308 · #**299** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Union wage scales have driven hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs offshore. Ford just announced they are closing more US facilities and moving the majority of their production to Mexico and other offshore locations. The UAW is upset. They thought they had a deal.

I don't think Ford even represents the future. If other countries can make something as simple as a car more cheaply and if we refuse to include new technologies in our cars, then there is no need to keep them here. What we need are industries we have an edge in. Our wages are why we are even considered first world.

If we are at such low unemployment, who exactly is out on their butts because of globalism?

Fiorenza · #**300** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 5:00 AM**

Quote:

How is McCain different?

McCain's a fiscal maverick. He will bitch at congress.

Quote:

who exactly is out on their butts because of globalism?

Unlike BabyDaddy, I have no problem with globalism because it provides the benefits of various trading partners' comparative advantages, resulting in the best value for money. However, there are US workers displaced by it. They are making a lot less income.