Bush's Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs

NY Times ^ | January.4,2004 | ROBERT PEAR

[Terpfen]

I don't think they even teach Latin, now, do they? Much less, Chaucer, Will'm Shakespeare, or the Bible. Nor, do they allow our children to read good old 'Uncle Remus', regardless of its un-PC structures... Whatever has happened to the public schools (rhetorical question)? They certainly aren't properly educating, nor preparing...

As a recent graduate (2002) of the public school system, let me tell you what my particular high school (which at the time had 6,000+ students, making it the largest in the country, IIRC) featured in its classes, and had as graduation requrements:

-4 English courses. I took the basic course for English I, which featured some grammar education in the first few weeks, then moved on to Romeo and Juliet, as well as a couple of other stories that I forget. Took honors for the other three, and was treated to books such as The Hot Zone, The Great Gatsby, various Edgar Allan Poe stories, Lord of the Flies, A Streetcar Named Desire, and Hamlet. And that's just what I remember.

-2 foreign language courses. There wasn't any Latin (dead language, but the school offered Spanish, German, and French. Due to living in South Florida, I took two Spanish courses. Didn't do too terribly well, but I passed.

-3 math courses, one of which must be an Algebra course (with Algebra II as a graduation requirement). The school offered all the way up to AP Calculus. Didn't take it, but it was there.

-3 social studies courses, one of which must be American History, another which must be a basic economics (how to read the stock market, supply and demand, etc) course. Plenty of AP classes offered here.

-3 science courses. This is where my old high school excelled. I think their science selection outdoes my college's... I personally took geology, biology I, and human anatomy.

That's just the core stuff, in addition to various other requirements... I did pretty well at the various AP classes, psychology especially (I got a 3 on the exam--good when you consider that I didn't do too well in-class, and went in expecting a 1). Public education is better than people give it credit for.

The main problem is the students themselves--they don't want to learn. The school had to rig attendance numbers by taking attendance in second hour (too many people came in late), and skipping was a huge problem. A good number of those who showed up for class were too busy fiddling with their cell phones and talking about who was dating who to pay attention to the lecture.

Rant off.

[pageonetoo]

... As a recent graduate (2002) of the public school system,...

Latin was a dead language when I graduated in 1965, but it is the foundation for much of the worlds' literature, and great writings.

The requirements, to graduate, do not reflect the value of the classes offered. With PCism, much of the good stuff, in literature, is excluded, while "I have two mommies" has been substitued.

Without a doubt, attitude plays a lot in your education, but I have a challenge for you. Without looking them up, please quote for me, the first paragraph of Lincoln's Gettysburg address (and tell me in what state it was given), type the whole Preamble to the Constitution, and The first paragraph of the Declaration of Indepence. If you cannot do it without cheating, please so state, in reply!

My next challenge would be for you to tell me about George Washington Carver, and his impact on society, then name the 23rd President, and Vice President. Then tell me the 49th and 50th states added, without looking them up, in order!

As previously stated, I graduated in 1965. I still remember them...!

[putupon]

Now that the Geezers get free pills, nobody else is going to want me to pay for theirs.

Yeah, right .

Sure.

Thanks mucho for opening the barn door for Socialized Medicine JorgeCare there, Dubya.

[Reagan Man]

I haven't changed my argument. The debate was about whether PresReagan cut federal spending and the answer is, yes he did cut federal spending. PresReagan cut federal spending by lowering discretionary spending. Specifically, non-military discretionary spending. Both charts and both articles specifically talk about Reagan reducing government spending. Period. You're engaging in sophistry. In both charts, the minuses indicate reductions in spending.

Further, here's what it says in the link you provided to RushLimbaugh.com.

"RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and a number of Republicans insist they're still the party of Ronald Reagan and smaller government. Well, there's no better way to test that claim than this direct comparison. Example: In Reagan's first three years, spending on energy went down 42.5%; in the first three years of the Bush administration, spending on energy went up 19%. Reagan sent real discretionary spending on "Education, Training, Employment and Social Services" down 32.6%; Bush sent it up 26.8%. On health (before the clamor for national nanny care) Reagan, down 15.6%; Bush up 36.8%. General government went up 4.2% in Reagan's first three years; under Bush, it went up 29.1%. You can say you're Reaganesque all you want; the numbers disagree.

[Reagan Man]

>>>... Reagan had to agree to spending increases in order to get the Dems to pass his programs, including tax cuts.

You're wrong. That was not true in Reagan's first three years in office, which is what this debate is all about. There are mandatory expenditures and discretionary expenditures. Mandatory expenditures can't be touched without Congress changing statutory law through newly enacted legislation. When you take Reagan's defense increases off the table, what's left are all non-mandatory spending on individual departments.

The CATO analysis from August 2003, specifcally indicates PresReagan reduced non-military discretionary spending by 13.5% in his first three years in office. PresBush has increased that same discretionary spending by 20.8%.

[jagrmeister]

Yes, you did change your argument. You first claimed discretionary spending was down in Reagan's first 3 years- in fact it increased from 5-6%, depending on whose chart you look at. It's irrelevant that he made some cuts here or there, as Bush has done the same, because in aggregate discretionary spending increased.

[Reagan Man]

You said and I quote:
"Cutting spending is a political impossibility. Reagan could not do it".

The facts speak for themselves. Reagan cut federal spending and there is nothing irrelevent about that. You've been proven wrong. End of discussion.

[jagrmeister]

LOL. Discretionary spending went up under Reagan. That's a fact. Are you that dense?

[Reagan Man]

>>>Are you that dense?

I'm not dense at all, but its quite obvious reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits. As a homework assignment, I want to to go back and reread what I said in RE:#44, first paragraph, sentence 3 & 4. Then proceed to RE:#45 and read the final paragraph. Take you time and concentrate. It's self-explanatory.

[Terpfen]

Without a doubt, attitude plays a lot in your education, but I have a challenge for you. Without looking them up, please quote for me, the first paragraph of Lincoln's Gettysburg address (and tell me in what state it was given), type the whole Preamble to the Constitution, and The first paragraph of the Declaration of Indepence. If you cannot do it without cheating, please so state, in reply! My next challenge would be for you to tell me about George Washington Carver, and his impact on society, then name the 23rd President, and Vice President. Then tell me the 49th and 50th states added, without looking them up, in order!

Alright, here we go.

Gettysburg Address, given at the site of the Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania: "Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Preamble to the Constitution: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Declaration of Independence: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another and to assume the seperate and equal station to which the laws of nature and God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of Man requires that they should declare their causes of separation." -- I'm pretty sure I botched this one.

I can't tell you a thing about George Washington Carver, since my AP American History teacher had to skimp on the social history (I could only take the course in the second semester of that year, meaning we had less than the full term to prepare for the exam).

The 23rd President was Harrison (and I don't mean William Henry), though I don't know his VP. As for the states, Alaska was the 49th, Hawaii the 50th.

Again, from first-hand experience, I find that public education suffers most from a lack of willingness on the part of a good amount of students to learn--excessive apathy, the same reason many don't vote. Some of my teachers were terrible, but they were gone the next year, so that said something to me.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Great post as always, Reagan Man. Looks like LBJ Jr. doesn't have the heart to REALLY cut gov't spending.

Domestically, Bush has been a disaster.

[Sofa King]

"When is government going to get productive and efficient and start laying off workers?"

#1) For the government to get productive it would have to produce something besides red tape. That's not what government does, however.

#2) For the government to get efficient it would need incentive, which is non-existent since government, by and large, doesn't have to worry about customer satisfaction or going out of business.

[jagrmeister]

Here's your homework, go to your local community college and take a class on Philosophy of Logic 101.

[Reagan Man]

Wow. That's it?! LOL You throw around a bunch of incoherent nonsense, then you run for cover. What a cop-out. Its time to face the facts. You lost the argument. I didn't realize "pragmatists" like yourself --- aka. centrist moderates --- could be so gutless and obtuse.

[jagrmeister]

Yeah, I really "lost" the argument.

Here's what you said: ""He lowered discretionary spending in his first three years in office."

Your OWN chart showed that Reagan increased discretionary spending 4.2% over three years.

I have debated this to my satisfaction. Have a nice day.

[Fledermaus]

And in related news...pigs started flying yesterday.

[Fledermaus]

ROFL...I'll know government waste, fraud, abuse and flat out BS is over when Lesky is out of a job!

[Fledermaus]

Everyone with a brain knows potatoe and tomatoe were spelled that way for centuries. I guess now a political candidate will be considered "stupid" if they now spell "ask" as "ax".

Besides, Quayle never bothered to spell it, he just questioned what was on the flash card the teacher gave him that had the "e" on the word. He even said, "hmm, according to the card you missed a letter". It was a set-up and the liberal media ran with it like they always do.

Fortunately, they don't have a majority in the market any longer.

[Lancey Howard]

How much of a surplus would we have if he eliminated all unconstitutional spending?

Hopefully none because our taxes would be only enough to cover the constitutionally allowed spending.

[Fledermaus]

Cutting spending is a political impossibility.

Not if we get people off their duffs to vote and counter the LIES the bureaucrats spread.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! YOU HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THIS MESS!