Despite continuing signs of a strong economic recovery, this is one area where President Bush remains vulnerable. The tax cuts have pissed of leftists, and the burgeoning defict has angered fiscal conservatives. I fall somewhere in between. I believe the tax cuts are largely responsible for dragging us out of the recession that began with the collapse of the internet stock bubble. However, I remain worried about the effects of long term deficits, although I do believe that as the economy grows, generating increased tax revenue, the deficit will naturally drop. Although the war on terrorism remains issue #1 for me, most exit polls have shown it's a distant third for democrats, behind the economy and health care. If job growth is still lagging (thanks TJ) in the fall, Bush could be in real trouble.
believe the tax cuts are largely responsible for dragging us out of the recession that began with the collapse of the internet stock bubble. Don't let facts enter into your opinion. Recession started in March 2001. Recovery started in ~November 2001. ~28 months later, we are still waiting for the job recovery. GWB should have create ~6 million net jobs after three years in office, but has managed to lose 2.3 million jobs. That is a 8 miilion net jobs swing and a complete and total damnation of supply side economics. I read an article recently (no link sorry) that 20% of employed Americans were concerned that they may lose their job in 2004.
However, I remain worried about the effects of long term deficits, although I do believe that as the economy grows, generating increased tax revenue, the deficit will naturally drop. Keep in mind that even Bush's super-rosy growth estimates don't show this. That used to be the argument, but now not even the administration is arguing that the deficit is related to a slow economy. The administration is arguing we had this phenomenal year economically, and yet we also have a deficit larger than anticipated and by far the largest in history (in dollar terms, at least).
but as a percentage of the overall economy it's actually smaller than it was at it's peak under reagan.
And Reagan's deficits took over a decade to retire. As an independant, I would rather vote for a tax-and-spend Democrat than a borrow-and-spend Republican. You can try to obfuscate the issue all you want, but at the end of Bush's first term, we will have added over a trillion dollars to the national debt when he came in with record surpluses. Fiscal conservative my a$$.
How can you create jobs without consumer confidence and a stable economy genius... ...Remember, the economy doesn't just go into the tank over night... Remember the events like Sept. 11th and the Enron Debacle...These among others contributed to the erosion of consumer confidence, which translates to a weak stock market, decreased production and capital investment... This is such a lame POV that it doesn't deserve my time... Carry on...
The economy and debt are real issues. The job loss could be big in some swing states such MO. which barely went to Bush last time. They have lost more jobs than the national average there and Democrats could try hard to win that state. Deficit spending is also huge. Bush's tax cuts are one of the reasons why we have the appearance of doing better ecnonomically, but they are rubber checks. If I ran around using money that I wasn't taking in, I could have a lot of great things, and it would look and feel(for a little while) like I was doing great. That's what's happening with these tax cuts. In 1999 the intrest payments on the national debt alone was 15.2% of the total spending by the govt. That was the same size as defense spending. This was back in 1999 too before Bush came in and ran the debt up even higher. http://www.devvy.com/collapse.html If the govt could pay off that 15.2% or whatever it's climbed to, or will climb to, there would be plenty of money for programs, tax cuts, etc. We could actually fund no child left behind, send every graduating senior to college, give everyone a tax cut, and we'd still be better off as far as the national debt went. Of course the only way to cut down on that debt is to increase federal revenue and cut spending. That's pretty easy because as the national debt goes down, govt. spending automatically will go down to as that 15.2% figure drops. Another point regarding tax cuts: If we gave payroll tax breaks then working Americans would be the ones who received the benefits. All working Americans. I think the debt could be a bigger issue depending on how it's used.
Great point. Bush's fiscal policies are like me going out and racking up tens of thousands in credit card debt so that I can look like I am doing alright financially and then wondering what went wrong when it comes time to pay the piper. I guess those corporate bigwigs are just too used to running a company into the ground and then declaring bankruptcy.
as the WSJ makes clear this morning, the states are actually sitting on $6Billion worth of federal funds aquired between 2000-2002. the problem w/ NCLB isn't lack of funding. moreover, total federal spending on K-12 eduation has increased from $250B in 1990 to $500B in 2003, while reading scores have remained flat. again, funding isn't the issue.
When you liberal boys finish up, and lay out what you believe to be the facts, I shall return to this thread, make you all look silly, and bid you GOOD DAY.
As someone who teaches in public schools funding is an issue. If they give you 6 billion and say it's funded but the changes required by NCLB is actually 8 billion then funding is an issue. The changes that are required cost more than the funding. I don't care how much funding has increased, enrollment has increased, demands, and new programs have been regulated and have increased more.
The main focus of this "war" president has not been on creating jobs. Something else to consider is that since 9/11 the Fed has been giving money away for free. This should be like throwing gasoline on a fire. The results have been truly underwhelming.
but as a percentage of the overall economy it's actually smaller than it was at it's peak under reagan. But is that really much of a good thing? "It's not quite as bad as the absolutely worst deficits in history!"
the point is funding has increased but spending by the states hasn't necessarily. they're sitting on the money. why don't they spend it, then see if it's not enough?
moreover, total federal spending on K-12 eduation has increased from $250B in 1990 to $500B in 2003 The federal government does not spend $500 billion on K-12 education. Our entire federal budget is about $2 trillion, and 25% of that does not go to education. I don't know offhand what the actual number is, but its nowhere close to that.
the point is funding has increased but spending by the states hasn't necessarily. they're sitting on the money. why don't they spend it, then see if it's not enough? I could be wrong, but doesn't this funding have requirements attached to it? In other words, if you offer a $5 grant for something that costs $10 to implement, the state can't afford it and simply will sit on the grant because they aren't allowed to spend it. The burdens of NCLB are far higher than the funding provided to implement it. I'm guessing the result is people are just rejecting the money because they have no choice.
perhaps the totals the chart refers to include all sources. the point about test scores remains however.
perhaps the totals the chart refers to include all sources. the point about test scores remains however. Yeah, that would be total nationwide spending. And 90+% of that is local/state, I believe. The question is what that money was used for - was the purpose to increase reading scores? We know that a lot of that was technology - bringing computers into the schools, etc. So today's kids might read as well as kids 10 years ago, but if they are far more proficient in technology, overall they would be considered smarter, right? That's the problem with using these standardized tests as measures. There's so much more going on than just reading and writing. Schools are having to deal with drug issues, gun issues, family health issues, etc that they didn't deal with nearly as much 10, 20, 30 years ago. So we have to look at the funding and see what its purpose was to determine if reading scores really should have gone up as a result of it.
basso, I wish the continuing budget crisis in Texas was a result of "sitting" on Federal funding. To be fair, it's as much fiscal mismanagement by the current far-right state government that's to blame as much as anything. They cut numerous state programs which resulted in a loss of Federal matching funds... money we had coming to us and didn't use. That may account for some of the numbers you mentioned. But another big problem for states and local government are Federal mandates that are underfunded. Hell, in Texas the local governments also have to deal with state mandates that are underfunded. The state here keeps cutting it's budget and local governments keep having to raise property and other taxes to cover it. The reason that happens is so the Governor and company can claim they "balanced the budget" and "didn't raise taxes". Completely bogus because local governments were forced to raise taxes instead. And the children of disadvantaged families, the elderly and the disabled, just to mention a few, get essential programs cut... programs that were already funded at one of the lowest levels in the country.
