Need a reason to not vote for Bushco?

Take your pick. Talk about a two faced administration.

One particularly heinous one…

Are you planning to tell people on your own that those “eliminated” programs were replaced by block grants which allow states to make their own spending priorities (subject, of course, as always under either party, to the reams and reams of federal regulation – Bush gets no points for reducing that!), and that total federal education spending is up 35% during the Bush administration (again, no points from this fical tightwad! But facts is facts.), or is this just an exercise to see if you’d get caught playing fast and loose with the facts?

In other news, Bush’s 2005 proposed budget has an 8% increase in Title I spending.

Uhhh…you do have cites for your information don’t you?

**Reeder ** wrote

No, do you have any cites for your misinformation other than that idiotic hate-blog?

While you’re looking, here’s a wild idea: check out the actual budget.

Reeder, Psst, please stop “helping”. Thanks ever so

Ah, Reeder…every time I see your OPs sprayed here on the wall, I think of those 3 greatest words that Ronnie ever uttered…

"Trust but verify."

I see many others here have the same mindset. Kudos to them.

If the money is there…where is it going?

As superintendent of Union Area School District in Lawrence County, Dr. Domenic Ionta has watched his main pipeline of federal funding, Title 1, dwindle from $216,615 in 2001-02 to $155,817 in the coming school year.

And back at the subject at hand, please provide a reasonable cite saying the Bush administration did the things you claimed in your OP.

After we’re finished with that, we can address this hijack about School Administrators complaining that the bar is being held too high for them. Trust me, I’ve got plenty to say on that topic. But one thing at a time.

Each “reason” has it’s cites or didn’t you read that far?

Oh…you didn’t even go to the page did you.

Wow, Reeder opening a thread to bash Bush? Say it ain’t so! :rolleyes:

Reeder, I can only hope you speak for all dumocrats. What flavor was the Kool-Aid today?

OK, well, I’ll happily take your word for all of the above. Can you advise how much of the money from these block grants is being used for its intended purpose? Are the states pulling money out of their education budgets equal to the block grant, thus effecting a zero net increase in education funding?

Would it matter if they were or not? Most educational funding in this country is at the local and state level.

If Reeder is criticizing Bush for cutting federal educational spending, and this turns out not to be so, the fact that the pencil budget at Kefauver High is being cut is immaterial to the original charge.

If the states are doing this, please explain how it’s Bush’s fault. His administration is providing more money. If the states are playing hanky-panky with it, shouldn’t the states be the ones getting pitted here?

Don’t have a good answer to you for at least half of that. I can tell you that all of the block grants are being used for the intended purposes (though, of course, that “purpose” is more broad than more directed grants) or that some states are violating the law (which law may or may not be constitutional). For the other half, I just don’t know. It would fail to surprise me if at least some states weren’t using the same dodge they used when they authorized lotteries “FOR THE CHILDREN!” – raise (or in this case accept) the money but redirect other money so it all turns out to be a big piggy bank. That would, of course, severely diminish any argument those particular states may be making that NCLB and other federal mandates are not being funded, but that hasn’t stopped states in the past and I can’t think of a reason why it might not be true now. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable will wander through the crap in the OP and have a better answer for you.

I’d welcome a good thread about the subject, though I’d be more of a lurker and less of a poster in it – maybe some ignorance (mine, at least) might be fought. But I don’t think there’s any doubt that this thread ain’t it. The OP is factually wrong in all material respects, and as usual reeder failed to do any independent investigative work to determine whether what he was posting was shit or shineola. And doubtless he now wonders why no one is breaking their back wandering through that site fact-checking the other stuff doubtless in there. In other news, I have no worldly idea how to spell “shineola” and spellcheck is no help, nor is the m-w dictionary I’ve got loaded. Is there an “e” or not?

Finally, my figure for federal education increases were something of an estimate of the increases which can be attributed to Bush’s proposed budgets – the actual increase in federal education spending has been larger, on the order of +/- 45%. That’s comprised of some holdover stuff from Clinton, who started increasing education spending meaningfully toward the end of his term, Bush’s proposed increases and increases in excess of Bush’s requests which Congress enacted and the president merely signed. Sorry for the confusion – at the time I posted no one with a hint or even caring about a hint of factual accuracy had yet posted in the thread.

Reeder wrote

I read each of your cites, including a fair amount of that OP abortion.

Your second set of cites is a bunch of school administrators complaining that they have to comply with educational standards. As I said before: after you open your ears for education on the matter, and maybe even apologize for the ridiculous OP, we can discuss whether school standards are too high. (quick answer: they’re not)

Did you even bother to click my link, namely Bush’s Education Budget, which you’ve mistakenly slandered here?

Just curious, as I’m not sure what the bill was called. Wasn’t there new legislation that Bush teamed up with Ted Kennedy? Why do I never see the derelict taxi driver slammed for anything?

Oh, right. I forgot, these boards are Bush-Sucks only. My bad.

Riiiight. Clinton never got slammed on these boards when he was Prez, hasn’t been slammed once since leaving office, and Kennedy’s never even been mentioned in a derogatory light on these boards even once!

Did you perhaps stop to think before posting that the reason you might see a large number of “Bush sucks”-type threads here is because Bush is occupying the White House?

Oh, what was I thinking…you’ve never evinced that you think so why would I think you’d start now?

Uhhh. Maybe cuz I never saw Clinton bashing here by the Bush-Haters? Just one small reason.

So, by your reasoning, if Kerry is in the WH we can expect all the Bush bashers to suddenly become Kerry bashers? I get it now! OK, I’ll trust…but verify.

BTW, thank you for teaching me tolerance on these boards. I’m learning a lot.

Quite frankly, if he does things in a similar fashion to Bush, or he’s otherwise less than good, he deserves to be bashed. Meanwhile it’s not surprising that, in the half-year you’ve been posting here (how long did you lurk), you don’t happen to recall any Clinton bashing. I lament that I have not personally bookmarked any threads, but I’d be willing to bet someone can find something for you.

Just make sure you don’t take Reeder’s posts to mean they’re standard form here (for either side). We’re most of us partisan to some degree, but we at least try to have a little more substance and effort behind our posts;)

There was plenty…“Billary”, “Slick Willy”, Whitewater, Vince Foster, the whole nine yards. It was pretty standard, as a matter of fact. I’m not saying the discussions weren’t heated, but they were far from one sided. IIRC most centered not so much on underlying political philosophies as specifics about applications of government, i.e. special counsels, costs of investigations, civic importance of charges, etc.
It was ugly then; it’s ugly now. Same old, same old.