NationStates Jolt Archive

"School's Open 'Til Six"

I didn't consider the school to be open during cross country practice.

I didn't consider the school to be open during cross country practice.

There's going to be alot of unhappy kids if Kerry wins.

Source?

Bush: NCLB! (BS!!!)
Kerry: Umm . . . let's make schools work harder, and NOT work smarter!

We're screwed both ways

There's going to be alot of unhappy kids if Kerry wins.why? I wasn't unhappy during cross country practice. Nor during track practice. Nor during band practice

Everyone who's concerned about government spending, Bush's deficits, and whatnot, and are voting for Kerry as a result...

What are you, an idiot? The guy has proposed, at minimum, to increase the budget by 50%, at most to more than double it. And here's another example.

Kerry is the only one of the two candidates who has promised to cut spending on his own favored policies if that's what it takes to get the budget under control. Bush, on the other hand, is the first President ever to never veto a spending package. Practice trumps theory. Vote Kerry.

Kerry is the only one of the two candidates who has promised to cut spending on his own facored policies if that's what it takes to get teh budget under control. Bush, on the other hand, is the first President ever to never veto a spending package. Practice trumps theory. Vote Kerry.


LOL I'm sorry? He's going to propose new spending programs and then cut the spending on those programs? And you think this is good fiscal policy? LOL!!! :p

LOL I'm sorry? He's going to propose new spending programs and then cut the spending on those programs? And you think this is good fiscal policy? LOL!!! :p

Actually, yes. It's called reacting to new developments. Plans are all very well and good. Things change though, so sometimes you have to make sacrifices. This is something Bush has never been able to get his head around, of course. Bush keeps going and going with his plans, even when they obviously fail.

Kerry is the only one of the two candidates who has promised to cut spending on his own favored policies if that's what it takes to get the budget under control. Bush, on the other hand, is the first President ever to never veto a spending package. Practice trumps theory. Vote Kerry.
So he's making promises he knows he won't be able to fufill?

So he's making promises he knows he won't be able to fufill?

:rolleyes: No, he's just admitting that planning can be fallible. He's also saying that, if something crops up, he'll be willing to sacrifice a pet project in the name of fiscal responsibility. It's like deciding that you don't need to buy a new CD, even though you really like it, because you're saving up to get your car fixed.

:rolleyes: No, he's just admitting that planning can be fallible. He's also saying that, if something crops up, he'll be willing to sacrifice a pet project in the name of fiscal responsibility. It's like deciding that you don't need to buy a new CD, even though you really like it, because you're saving up to get your car fixed.

And he's saying it yet is proposing, depending on who you listen to, anywhere from 980 billion to 2.2 trillion in new spending?

And he's saying it yet is proposing, depending on who you listen to, anywhere from 980 billion to 2.2 trillion in new spending?

And Bush is proposing 3 trillion in new spending. What's your point?

And Bush is proposing 3 trillion in new spending. What's your point?

Oh really? What are the new programs that Bush is proposing that add up to 3 trillion? Or did you just pull that out of your ass to come up with some retort?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18876-2004Sep13.html

Also, realize that Bush took one of the largest federal surplusses of all time, and out of it created the LARGEST federal deficit of all time. That is definatly not good fiscal policy.

The best way to help education would be to abolish the Department of Education and get the federal government out of education altogether. Ever since the federal government first became involved in education (in 1958), education has continue to degrade every year.

And he's saying it yet is proposing, depending on who you listen to, anywhere from 980 billion to 2.2 trillion in new spending?since most of his spending proposals are on condition of a small deficit, the answer to your question is no. For most of John Kerry's spending proposals, any support he shows for them before the deficit has dropped to about $200 billion would amount to breaking a campaign promise. If you don't believe Gymoor, you can read the policy directions yourself

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html

The Kerry-Edwards plan will cut the deficit in half while making health care more affordable and improving our schools....

If Congress cannot agree on savings, John Kerry will be willing to sacrifice some of his priorities, if necessary, to control spending. Specifically, John Kerry will favor an automatic across-the-board cut of all domestic discretionary programs to ensure that spending does not grow faster than inflation.

LOL ok so 1 trillion over 10 YEARS for the tax cuts and 2 trillion from SS is your retort?

The tax cuts thing is of course ridiculous, especially estimating over 10 years without taking into account increased revenue from job growth and consumer spending from said tax cuts. Its always tough to try and estimate the impact of tax cuts especially over a time period of 10 years. So basically put, while the number may certainly add up to that, its a little ridiculous to say that Bush has a 3 trillion dollar spending proposal which includes one third of it in tax cuts over ten years.

As far as the SS proposal: The proposal is to allow partial privatization. In other words, the money that would be going to the government for new workers entering SS is instead being redirected into the private sector. Its not exactly a new spending program, nor does it require to government to redirect any funds to a new program.

So basically you have a handful of bullshit. This is the best you can do?

:rolleyes: No, he's just admitting that planning can be fallible. He's also saying that, if something crops up, he'll be willing to sacrifice a pet project in the name of fiscal responsibility. It's like deciding that you don't need to buy a new CD, even though you really like it, because you're saving up to get your car fixed.
You don't leave home on a road trip with directions you know are bad. It seems like Kerry is deliberately ignoring the fact that he'll almost certainly have trouble halving the deficit, cutting taxes for 98% of Americans and 99% of businesses, giving every American healthcare like someone in Congress does, add 40,000 jobs to the military, cut healthcare premiums, give tax credits for college tuition, fund all the schools so they can stay open until 6 PM, fund alternative-energy programs, expand job training, double the funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, establish a National Education Trust Fund, help expand broadband internet use, increase defense research, etc... the list goes on for a very long time.

since most of his spending proposals are on condition of a small deficit, the answer to your question is no. For most of John Kerry's spending proposals, any support he shows for them before the deficit has dropped to about $200 billion would amount to breaking a campaign promise. If you don't believe Gymoor, you can read the policy directions yourself

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html

The Kerry-Edwards plan will cut the deficit in half while making health care more affordable and improving our schools....

If Congress cannot agree on savings, John Kerry will be willing to sacrifice some of his priorities, if necessary, to control spending. Specifically, John Kerry will favor an automatic across-the-board cut of all domestic discretionary programs to ensure that spending does not grow faster than inflation.


Ok, so how does he propose to cut the deficit in half and also increase spending? And when has Kerry ever in his 20 years in Congress proposed or voted for a check on discretionary spending, as I am not aware of any such instance, in fact just the opposite?

Ok, so how does he propose to cut the deficit in half and also increase spending? And when has Kerry ever in his 20 years in Congress proposed or voted for a check on discretionary spending, as I am not aware of any such instance, in fact just the opposite?

Is there some kind of secret Republican reading glasses that only let them see part of Kerry's record?

Is there some kind of secret Republican reading glasses that only let them see part of Kerry's record?


LOL I'm not exactly a Republican, though I'm not a fan of Democrats. You should probably avoid simply blanketing everyone who disagrees with you with a single term that may not apply, no assume that everyone who disagrees with you must automatically belong to the same group.

And hey, all I'm doing is asking for an answer. If thats too tough, or if you don't care enough to answer thats fine, but mindlessly just labeling people is kinda unecessary.

LOL I'm not exactly a Republican, though I'm not a fan of Democrats. You should probably avoid simply blanketing everyone who disagrees with you with a single term that may not apply, no assume that everyone who disagrees with you must automatically belong to the same group.

And hey, all I'm doing is asking for an answer. If thats too tough, or if you don't care enough to answer thats fine, but mindlessly just labeling people is kinda unecessary.

I apologize for incorrectly labelling you.
Now, I'm sure you know Kerry supported the balanced budget initiative. I'm sure you also know Kerry confronted BCCI, a bank involved with both the Iran-Contra affair and with funneling money to terrorist organizations.

You don't leave home on a road trip with directions you know are bad. It seems like Kerry is deliberately ignoring the fact that he'll almost certainly have trouble halving the deficit, cutting taxes for 98% of Americans and 99% of businesses, giving every American healthcare like someone in Congress does, add 40,000 jobs to the military, cut healthcare premiums, give tax credits for college tuition, fund all the schools so they can stay open until 6 PM, fund alternative-energy programs, expand job training, double the funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, establish a National Education Trust Fund, help expand broadband internet use, increase defense research, etc... the list goes on for a very long time.

:rolleyes: Neither do you keep driving forward when you encounter a detour sign.

:rolleyes: Neither do you keep driving forward when you encounter a detour sign.
I'm not saying what Bush is doing is right. I don't agree with Bush's budget policies either. This isn't about Bush. Just because someone dosen't agree with Bush, though, dosen't mean that their vote should just go to Kerry. If the best you can give me is "Bush would do it too", I'll vote for Bush simply because of the judicial appointments he'll make as a Republican.

I apologize for incorrectly labelling you.
Now, I'm sure you know Kerry supported the balanced budget initiative. I'm sure you also know Kerry confronted BCCI, a bank involved with both the Iran-Contra affair and with funneling money to terrorist organizations.


You are correct on that, the balanced budget initiative. As far as the BCCI affair, that has lass to do with controlling discretionary spending than with politics and I think thats clear.

My point though is Kerry, throughout his career, has never been a fiscal conservative or a hawk on discretionary spending, yet now he claims to wish to support those concepts all of a sudden now that he's running for President. I'm talking about consistency, a problem Kerry emphatically has in bunches.

Ok, so how does he propose to cut the deficit in half and also increase spending? And when has Kerry ever in his 20 years in Congress proposed or voted for a check on discretionary spending, as I am not aware of any such instance, in fact just the opposite?He has proposed an overall decrease, not an increase, in spending. If you had actually gone to the platform page that I linked to, you would have known that. As for your desperate attempt to once again change the topic of this thread, we will for the third time provide the proof that you have demanded. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00132

He has proposed an overall decrease, not an increase, in spending. If you had actually gone to the platform page that I linked to, you would have known that. As for your desperate attempt to once again change the topic of this thread, we will for the third time provide the proof that you have demanded. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00132


Which platform page was that, or are you thinking about another thread?

And what topic am I desperately attempting to change?

And what does the vote for disaster relief prove?

???

Um... actually, Kerry proposed that school be open 'til 6, not in session. He wants more afterschool programs, not longer school hours.

Which platform page was that, or are you thinking about another thread?

And what topic am I desperately attempting to change?

And what does the vote for disaster relief prove?http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html

First, you changed the topic from after school programs to the deficit. After your claims about Bush fiscal responsibility and Kerry's spending plans were debunked, you tried to change the topic to John Kerry's voting record.

"Making emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster assistance and making rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes."
Oh, I don't know, maybe that it took me less than ten minutes to find a vote he had cast to cut discretionary spending.