Apparently google isn’t ***your ** * friend. Still no “Clinton is a communist” quote.
Look, I have no doubt that some conservative somewhere (maybe even here) has called Bill a commie. Just as some lefties have called Bush a fascist. In both cases they were exagerating either to be humorous or out of sheer ignorance. So, that’s the reason some conservatives have called Bill a communist.
To paraphrase one of my favorite movies: You keep googling 'luc. That’s what you’re good at. 
Very true. Of course, there is also the equally obnoxious trend on the left to shout “fascist” or “Nazi” at every peceived political stance to the right of their own.
When they do shout “Hitler” or “Nazi” they bring up the Godwin’s Law… there should be the equivalent for calling people “commies”.
Great Og, you sent several years of Federal Budget figures! Obviously not getting through this one before lunch.
Renob, I am going to wade through this. I will have a response. But it’ll probably take me some time. I’ll be looking for a chance down the road to continue this again. I concede that you are better prepared for this one than me right now.
Everyone else, sorry I hijacked this thread without warning.
I think you do argue on the basis of a technicality much. People have shown here that there are things out there about Clinton’s “communist connections”, the “Clinton-Gore communist roots”, and a bumper sticker saying “Clinton/Gore – America’s Communist All Star Team”. (Actually, I don’t understand why the last one isn’t equivalent to saying “Clinton=Communist” even in your hyper-technical sense.)
Furthermore, one poster here has called Hillary Clinton a marxist and another has labeled Clinton’s universal health care plan “a communist/socialist position”. This despite the fact that the health care plan did not go nearly as far as most other Western non-communist/socialist countries like Canada and much of Europe in that it didn’t even make health insurance single-payer. It just provided universal health care through regulation of private insurance companies, for heaven’s sake! In fact, I think this thread is proof-positive that anything that gets more than a little bit left of the American center (and still perhaps to the right of the center of most Western democracies) is libel to be equated with socialism or communism.
Sean, sorry for the mass of information. I prefer that, however, over relying on others to interpret it for me. Every group in DC has an agenda, so I just go to the numbers myself. One thing that may help you, however, is that every appropriations bill has comparisons to the previous year’s. For example, to get the FY2001 numbers I simply went to the FY2002 bill (I usually find that the Senate committee markup has the easiest to read format for this) and they told the FY2001 number. That’s easier than wading through the end-of-the-year omnibus appropriations confusion.
What you will find, however, if that overall education spending has gone up dramatically under Bush, and in certain areas (special ed, for instance), this is especially pronounced. At the end of the first Bush term, education is receiving much more federal funding than it did when he came into office. That statement is indisputable.
I also apologize to everyone for the thread hijack.
It’s the head-in-the-sand school of rhetoric. If I call my opponents’ answers nonresponsive and move the goalpost every time there’s a touchdown, I can say that no one has addressed my point. Happens far too frequently, especially here in Great Debates.
Just for the record:
President Bush’s budget request for 2005 eliminates 38 education programs including arts in education, dropout prevention, alcohol abuse reduction, school counselors, Even Start, smaller learning communities, teacher certification and comprehensive school reform. The last three are initiatives the President said are important components of improving the public schools.
Meanwhile, President Bush did find another $64 million for private school voucher programs. And those are not the only federal funds going into private education. I would like to see Bush do more for public schools.
I am a retired public school teacher. I don’t totally object to the school voucher program. And certainly I support higher standards for teachers. But Bush’s nonsense is gutting public education.
Sorry for the hijack. There are just a few subjects that get my goat. This is one of them.
The President’s budget request is essentially meaningless. It has no force in law and Congress routinely ignores it.
Furthermore, just because Bush has proposed eliminating those small programs it doesn’t mean he’s against those type of activities. It has been a constant theme during his Administration that he wants to eliminate targeted funds for small programs such as this and give states more flexibility to use their federal funds. Thus, instead of each state getting a small amount of money earmarked for arts education and another small amount for dropout prevention and another small amount for whatever other program, states would get a large sum of money they can use to meet their pressing needs. So if one state has a larger problem with dropouts and not, say, class-size reduction, they can use more money for dropout prevention. It’s letting states decide how to use the money to meet their unique needs instead of the federal government forcing them to spend that money in a certain way.
Which voucher program are you talking about? The one in DC? There is no other voucher program funded by federal money. And the money for the DC voucher program doesn’t come out of Department of Education funds. It’s funded in an entirely separate bill, so it’s not as if this voucher money is being taken away from any public school money. And since the feds spend billions on public schools, $64 million is not actually a whole lot of money, anyway.
How is any of this “gutting” public education? There is a lot more federal money pouring into education now than when Bush came into office.