You gotta love Dick Cheney

n-Track Studio Discussion Forum
41
Quote (TomS @ Sep. 13 2006,19:29)
I'm with Mike - if the mission is accomplished let's get out of there. What a monumental waste of money. And where the #### is bin Laden? Oh, yeah, Bush and Cheney really know what they're doing. Buck Fush I say.

Agreed. If we had left when Bush announced "Mission Accomplished", we might have had the funds and the manpower to save lives in our own country during Katrina. As it stands, New Orleans looks like it will never be rebuilt properly and even people who chose to come back are now leaving.


I know... one Bush failure at a time...

Mike
42

Actually to be fair to Bush, he actually said:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
…major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

Of course, we know now that this statement was premature.

Bush also falsely stated Iraq’s ties to Al Qaida:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding.

There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that Saddam was an ally of Al Qaida, but of course, when did truth matter to Bush et al.

It’s really simple - Bush convinced enough Americans that there was a tie between Iraq & Al Quada, he convinced enough Americans that Saddam was an “immediate” threat, and that defeating Saddam was part of the war on terror. Americans get the President they deserve.
43
Quote (DrGuitar @ Sep. 13 2006,20:20)
Quote (TomS @ Sep. 13 2006,19:29)
I'm with Mike - if the mission is accomplished let's get out of there. What a monumental waste of money. And where the #### is bin Laden? Oh, yeah, Bush and Cheney really know what they're doing. Buck Fush I say.

Agreed. If we had left when Bush announced "Mission Accomplished", we might have had the funds and the manpower to save lives in our own country during Katrina. As it stands, New Orleans looks like it will never be rebuilt properly and even people who chose to come back are now leaving.


I know... one Bush failure at a time...

Mike

Or, put that money into education - imagine what that would have done for our economy - education is so cheap in comparison to bombs, and is economically so beneficial.

Bush: the anti-education president.
44

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Or, put that money into education - imagine what that would have done for our economy - education is so cheap in comparison to bombs, and is economically so beneficial.

Bush: the anti-education president.


Ya, ya, ya! Just 'cuz yer in dat business…! :)

We had edjacaton bafore Bush and lookie…it got him lected.

We need to get rid of higher learning. It didn’t do Bush or any of the administration any good. In fact, one could argue that it leads to a sense of entitlement above others who may have what most overeducated don’t…experience.

Therefore, I think we need to educate to the 6th grade. Then it’s off to work in a factory for (new catagory) childrens wages. This would be great for us in regards to competition with China and India. At least we’d end up with a population of doers instead of slackers.

:p


KF
45

A four year degree is the new 6th grade. :)

46

Actually, you are correct, Mike, sort of. Saddam was in hiding. Was he actually “removed” before we caught him? That’s debatable. Has Osama been “removed” or is he in hiding? Of course there is a difference, but both were in similar situations at the time. One still is.

Joe’s statement “There’s no question that the mission to remove Saddam was accomplished. He’s been under trial or do you not read the news??” implies that he was indeed removed and since he is indeed under trial had been caught.

While he was most certainly in hiding and severely in mobility/visibility and yes control, there were tapes of him still coming out at that time that showed him with some amount of control as limited at it may have been, just as there are tapes to this day that strongly imply that Osama is still out there in control even if he’s dead already. It’s only when we caught Saddam in December that we could confirm that he was truly removed. That had not happened on May First.

47

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Joe’s statement “There’s no question that the mission to remove Saddam was accomplished. He’s been under trial or do you not read the news??” implies that he was indeed removed and since he is indeed under trial had been caught.

Right - Joe is mixing two different things here. Good reasoning. So the mission was not really accomplished, however, as Bush said - he thought major combat operations were over.
48

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 13 2006,18:46)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The timeline doesn’t fit. Joe, it was seven and a half months between Mission Accomplished and capturing Saddam.

Careful phoo - now you’re playing the semantics game. Joe is saying that the mission is removing him from power. Capturing him is different.

Awesome job Mike. There’s hope for you yet.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 13 2006,18:46)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
There’s no question that the mission to remove Saddam was accomplished.

Right. If the mission was accomplished, then we can leave - correct?

You’re looking at this through an oversimplified context. Removing Saddam’s regime was the primary mission and it was accomplished. We could have gone home then, but the ensuing insurgency prevented that from happening. We were forced into a different battle and mission. We went from fighting a uniformed enemy to a situation that was completely unconventional. Yet despite these obstacles, we have still installed most of the components necessary for a new freely elected government to be formed and for the people to start taking over their own security and defense. None would have happened had we simply left.
49

Quote (TomS @ Sep. 14 2006,08:50)
Or, put that money into education - imagine what that would have done for our economy - education is so cheap in comparison to bombs, and is economically so beneficial.

Bush: the anti-education president.

You’re comparing apples to bombs; a looser connection than Iraq’s ties to Al Qaeda. Our education system is one of the most highly funded systems in the world. Simply throwing money at it doesn’t inherently make it better. Your label of Bush is awfully lame too, especially considering how much education funding has increased since he’s been in office. There have been some cuts recently, but this has only been to get rid of ineffective programs. Again, simply throwing money at it doesn’t make it better.
50

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
You’re comparing apples to bombs

Of course he is. Is it better to bomb or educate? It’s obvious where the priorities of some are.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Again, simply throwing money at it doesn’t make it better.

Unless it’s for bombs. Taking away money from education sure doesn’t make it better.
51

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
You’re looking at this through an oversimplified context.

No - I was oversimplifying it because I felt that you were oversimplifying it.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
We could have gone home then, but the ensuing insurgency prevented that from happening. We were forced into a different battle and mission. We went from fighting a uniformed enemy to a situation that was completely unconventional.

Of course we could not have gone home then. Many knew that this is what would happen in Iraq. Even Powell knew that - he told Bush that we would have to own Iraq if we took out Saddam.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Yet despite these obstacles, we have still installed most of the components necessary for a new freely elected government to be formed and for the people to start taking over their own security and defense. None would have happened had we simply left.

This is where you & I differ. I do agree that if a truly democratic & free Iraq could be created in the Middle East, then it probably would be a good thing (although it could also have the opposite effect). Iin fact, if Bush had presented the war for it’s real reasons (to create a country that was sympathetic to us & to remove a violent dictator), then I might have gone along with it (to a point). However, it takes more than an election to create a democracy (even some Republicans admit this). I also don’t necessarily think that we can shape the Middle East to become like we want it to become.
52
Quote (ksdb @ Sep. 14 2006,15:17)
Quote (TomS @ Sep. 14 2006,08:50)
Or, put that money into education - imagine what that would have done for our economy - education is so cheap in comparison to bombs, and is economically so beneficial.

Bush: the anti-education president.

You're comparing apples to bombs; a looser connection than Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda. Our education system is one of the most highly funded systems in the world. Simply throwing money at it doesn't inherently make it better. Your label of Bush is awfully lame too, especially considering how much education funding has increased since he's been in office. There have been some cuts recently, but this has only been to get rid of ineffective programs. Again, simply throwing money at it doesn't make it better.

You are wrong, of course, about the funding. I graduated with bachelors from U Michigan and $1800 of debt in 1985. I graduated from U Wisconsin law school with no debt. I worked my way through both, with no family help. I challenge you to figure out a way to do that now. :D
53

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Our education system is one of the most highly funded systems in the world.

Is it now? There is a direct correlation to the amount of money spent per pupil & higher NAEP scores. If you don’t believe me then look it up!

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
States with high spending per pupil, lower pupil-teacher ratios, higher participation in public prekindergarten and higher reported teacher resources have higher achievement.


Many of the public schools are pretty bad in CA with +30 kids/teacher? Why do you think that is? It’s because spending per pupil has been gutted just like the rest of the state’s services.

Prove your claim that spending on education has actually gone up.
54

Reagan was the real criminal here. He really destroyed school funding.

Americans are so stupid about education. It costs very little in the grand scheme of things, a 4 year degree returns about 400% of the investment in increased tax revenue (who here wouldn’t buy that stock?), and is a precondition for a society with a high quality of life, lower crime, better general heath, and so on. As it is, we’ve now made it so that there is a demographic shift in the elite schools. Look at the demographics for any big state school, like U Michigan or Wisconsin. Such a shift is anti-democratic, anti-meritocratic, and really, really bad for economies and democracy.

Sorry, ksdb, but it really is in your best interest to support more public money for education. BTW, the phrase “throwing money at it” just implies a false dichotomy. Folks in education are very, very good at adding a whole lot of economic value for very little investment. It’s that 400% return thing. (That figure comes from a study of the tax effects of 4 year state school degrees in Michigan. Embarrasing bit of empirical evidence for the anti-education forces here, that is, the repbulicans, especially the fundamentalist Christian/corporate cabal.)

55
Quote (TomS @ Sep. 15 2006,10:23)
You are wrong, of course, about the funding. I graduated with bachelors from U Michigan and $1800 of debt in 1985. I graduated from U Wisconsin law school with no debt. I worked my way through both, with no family help. I challenge you to figure out a way to do that now. :D

Right and your anecdotal experience somehow proves that Bush is anti-education?? I'm really disappointed in you. Tuition, books and housing didn't immediately escalate the second he was elected.
56

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 15 2006,11:38)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Our education system is one of the most highly funded systems in the world.

Is it now? There is a direct correlation to the amount of money spent per pupil & higher NAEP scores. If you don’t believe me then look it up!

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
States with high spending per pupil, lower pupil-teacher ratios, higher participation in public prekindergarten and higher reported teacher resources have higher achievement.


Many of the public schools are pretty bad in CA with +30 kids/teacher? Why do you think that is? It’s because spending per pupil has been gutted just like the rest of the state’s services.

Prove your claim that spending on education has actually gone up.

Elementary: Below are annual appropriation figures from the Department of Education. Spending was pretty stagnant during IFP Clinton’s term.

1993 $33 M
1994 $27 M
1995 $32 M
1996 $31 M
1997 $33 M
1998 $35 M
1999 $38 M
2000 $38 M
2001 $42 M
2002 $56 M << The anti-education budget kicks in here
2003 $63 M
2004 $67 M
2005 $74 M
2006 $88 M
57

I agree, my anecdotal evidence is only anecdotal, but it does point to something. And I also totally agree, Clinton was NOT the education president. He did a lousy job on that front, no doubt about it. But the DE figures are not very helpful - you need the data from the mid 70s, and then you need to correlate it with the cost of education. Plus it helps to figure in what states and local governments did. The total pciture: we suck at funding education, and in terms of economics - something that we both agree on, ksdb - it is very, very productive. It’s a sine qua non for our future well being. And look at how cheap it is! My goodness, how many petnagon toliet seats is that?

Also, I have to add, we need to consider the way the money is being targeted by Bush. Remember Pell grants? the shift has been to loans at interest rates that make privte lenders attractive. Why?

And finally, we need to look at tax cuts that are targeted to help people pay for education - there Clinton did do a little bit - the idea behind it being that we would get a tax cut that covered 2 -year college tuition. But I would never call Clinton the education president. S’pose we agree on that? :)

58

Quote (TomS @ Sep. 16 2006,21:25)
I agree, my anecdotal evidence is only anecdotal, but it does point to something. And I also totally agree, Clinton was NOT the education president. He did a lousy job on that front, no doubt about it. But the DE figures are not very helpful - you need the data from the mid 70s, and then you need to correlate it with the cost of education. Plus it helps to figure in what states and local governments did. The total pciture: we suck at funding education, and in terms of economics - something that we both agree on, ksdb - it is very, very productive. It’s a sine qua non for our future well being. And look at how cheap it is! My goodness, how many petnagon toliet seats is that?

Also, I have to add, we need to consider the way the money is being targeted by Bush. Remember Pell grants? the shift has been to loans at interest rates that make privte lenders attractive. Why?

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but appropriations for Pell Grants have increased steadily under Bush. The number of recipients has increased annually as well, in addition to the average amount awarded.

School year, PG appropriations, # of Recipieints, Avg. Grant
2000-2001 $7.6 B, 3.9 M, $2040
2001-2002 $8.7 B, 4.3 M. $2,298
2002-2003 $11.31 B, 4.7 M, $2,436
2003-2004 $11.36 B, 5.1 M, $2,473
2004-2005 $12 B, 5.3 M, $2,477

Tuition costs are likely outpacing the growth of pell grants, which would be one reason why loans are a priority; but there are also growing numbers of scholarships available at universities too. Philanthropic support of education helps make up where state governments have come up short in funding their local institutions, and it is at very high levels during this administation, due in large part to the tax breaks that are available.

Quote (TomS @ Sep. 16 2006,21:25)
And finally, we need to look at tax cuts that are targeted to help people pay for education - there Clinton did do a little bit - the idea behind it being that we would get a tax cut that covered 2 -year college tuition. But I would never call Clinton the education president. S’pose we agree on that? :)

My own anecdotal evidence shows that my wife and I have been getting a nice tax write-off for the interest paid on her student loans. That write-off was supposed to have expired, but was extended under President Bush. I have a feeling this isn’t the only tax break for education under his administration.
59

Guys - the Republicans took over the purse in 1994:

1993 $33 M
1994 $27 M

Clinton spent on education before they took over. ksdb - thanks for showing that the Republican’s value education less than Democrats.

60

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,12:32)
Guys - the Republicans took over the purse in 1994:

1993 $33 M
1994 $27 M

Clinton spent on education before they took over. ksdb - thanks for showing that the Republican’s value education less than Democrats.

Genius, the Republicans were elected in 1994, but they wouldn’t have had an impact until the 1995 or 1996 budget. The budget is set a year ahead and it’s requested by the President. What you showed was the drop from George H.W. Bush to Clinton.