Let me see…150 billion for Iraq at least.
1.2 billion for “happy marriages”.
That brings us to jobs and job training. How much do you think Bush want to spend to teach all of the laid off new job kills?
$120 million?? What’s that…two minutes of government spending under “spend it all we’ll print more” Bush?
That seems like a paltry sum for retraining our mass of laid off workers.
That is nowhere near enough money. It’s just lip service to the unemployed.
When did it become the respondibility of the federal government to ensure that workers get training?
IMO, this sort of thing is much better handled by the private sector. There are lots of technical jobs now that didn’t exist ten years ago. We didn’t need the government to provide training. Computer learning and training schools popped up all over the place. Colleges started offereing certificate training programs. The private sector filled the void because there was a market need for trained workers. If such a need arises again, then the private sector will handle it.
When did it become the responsibility of the federal government to spend $1.5 billion to promote marriage?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/14/politics/main593122.shtml
So that’s what, $40 for everyone unemployed (just counting those listed as unemployed, not those who’ve given up or are desperate to change jobs at that)? sounds curiously like the price of a “Mandarin for Dummies” tape set.
It says in your cite Reeder that the speech announcing the details of the plan isn’t until tonight. Couldn’t you wait to bash his plan until AFTER he makes a full anouncement of what he’s doing? lol.
In addition, doesn’t the Department of Labor ALREADY have programs for training and such? This sounds like something ADDITIONAL to me (yet another thing we’ll have to pay for…grump). I’m no fan of Bush, but I would think that you could hold off bashing on him until at least he announces the frigging plan first and you get the details. THEN you can pound on him to your little (flinty) hearts content. 
-XT
Hear, hear, Fear Itself. Let’s not knee-jerk the SOtU address too quickly lest we lose our learn-ed liberal reputation for balance and truth-telling. 
The problem is indeed not the relative paucity of funds for a program Reeder finds philosophically agreeable but rather the egregious misappropriation of large sums to pointless and ill-considered sops to a perniciously ideological segment of the right-leaning electorate.
People ask me how I can profess to be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative at the same time. Simply put, I support public tax dollars being spent on social and economic problems where there is a demonstrated compelling need, a measurable benchmark for success, an effective method for implementation, and a centralized administrative body (i.e. the federal government) is the best delivery and oversight instrument.
A federal program “in defense of marriage” fits NONE of those criteria. It is a decision made in people’s homes, families, and churches - if I find the federal government sticking it’s nose in any of those three places, I’ll shoot 'em with my Constitutionally protected firearm (although not an assault rifle, cuz that kind of firepower cannot be justified by hunting, collecting, nor self-defense 
).
Nah, that’s one month’s bus fare to the local McDonalds. Last I heard, McD’s still gets government subsidies for training someone to slap a burger together, even if they get fired one month later.
Cite please?
As for Reeder’s OP preceding the speech, it’s the White House which releases portions of the speech in advance to foment discussion.
Putting foreign affairs aside, this country is headed backwards in terms of social and economic issues. You’d think a Republican wouldn’t have a SoTU with a laundry list of new spending, and in the same speech mention that tax cuts need to remain, then end it with mentioning that we need to be conservative with government spending. :smack:
I can’t understand what the basis is for increasing our budget deficit by trillions for the sake of all but imposing religious values to the country. His education program is ridiculously ineffective as well, I was groaning at his justifications.
One think he really waffled on, although most people won’t catch it, was his bit on jobs. He didn’t mention anything about creating jobs at all. He said that the future of jobs are in high-tech sectors like biotechnology. Then he said that we need to spend more of our tax dollars to train people for high tech jobs. He neglects to mention WHERE THESE JOBS ARE COMING FROM. High tech jobs are all heading out of the country.
If there is anything the democrats are extremely strong on, its jobs and the economy. Bush has the edge with his scare tactics about the continuing threats of terrorism or whatnot, but the future of our country looks very grim if that is all he has to say.
I got it from Fast Food Nation; I’d cite chapter and verse, but my copy is out on loan. There’s a similar claim here, however:
The government training McDonalds employees doesn’t make any sense to me. However, the government training carpenters, computer programmers or janitors doesn’t make any sense either.
If you support the goverment being responsible for training workers, then why not McDonalds? Don’t many workers get their first job in fast food? I know I did. (Wendy’s)
Who decides what industries the government will train people for and what industries or companies will not get training? What factors should be involved? The ease or difficulty of the job? The size and wealth of the company?
There is just no way that the government is ever going to do a better job than the private sector in providing job training. If there ever is a shortage of trained workers, then the private sector will rise to meet it.
Because it is not a transportable skill. McD’s teaches the McD method, on McD equipment. Much of what you learn is useless at Burger King or Wendy’s. Training programs should not be employer specific; rather they should prepare workers to enter an industry, without regard to a specific employer.
It’s called the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and, as mentioned above, provides a tax credit of up to $2400 for businesses that employ certain groups of people for at least 400 hours. It seems to have expired as of January 1st of this year, though.