Things get bigger if ya cuts 'em!

[mburbank]

Bush Talks Job Training in Address, But Cuts Funds
(Daily mislead)


President Bush is visiting Ohio today to trumpet a $500 million job training/education proposal announced in his State of the Union address.1 But the president has recently proposed to cut almost $700 million out of the same job training and education programs he is now touting.

As part of his new proposal, Bush said last night "I propose increasing our support for America's fine community colleges."2 Last year, however, the president sought to cut $230 million out of vocational/community college education, along with "eliminating funding for technical education."3. When lawmakers tried to restore the cuts in April, Bush was adamant that the cuts be preserved, and his allies in the Senate voted down the funding.4 The president also recently eliminated all $225 million in funding for youth job training grants.5

The other key piece of Bush's proposal involves college funding. The president said last night, "I propose larger Pell grants for students." But he did not mention his recent decision to "cut the Pell Grant program by $270 million"6 - a move his own Education Department admits will cut off 84,000 students, and reduce grants for "an additional one million students."7

Sources:

1. Fact Sheet: Jobs for the 21st Century, 01/21/2004.
2. State of the Union Address, 01/21/2004.
3. Community College Week, 02/17/2003.
4. Community College Week, 04/14/2003.
5. Bush Credibility Gap, 2004.
6. Chicago Tribune, 08/04/2003.
7. Chronicle of Higher Education, 08/01/2003.

[Buffalo Tom]

Jumpin' Jehosephat, the cad is not even pretending at being caring and compassionate anymore. I really hope the American electorate is smart enough to see through his lies this election year.

[The One and Only...]

You do realize that every politician - every last one of them - misdirects in similar manners, right?

Just look at Howard "I think Iowa's dominated by special interests. Oh wait - no I don't" Dean.

I'd be frightened to have him affect policy.

Let's also not forget FDR, probably the worst president ever spawned within this country. He was so bad that he tried to pass a "judge-packing" measure so as to put more liberal judges in the Supreme Court.

[sspadowsky]

Yeah, the guy who helped to pull the country out of the Depression was a whole lot worse than Bush, who has completely trampled the constitution, eliminated public access to information, and sought to ban gay marriage via the constitution. Let us not also forget the whole space fiasco, that election year posturing that we can't afford to pay for anyway. We're talking about someone who places all of the above things higher than job creation and economic recovery.

Surely, FDR is worse than the guy who praises the military he so eagerly puts in harm's way, and then cuts their endangerment pay and benefits. And we all know he's worse than the guy who lied outright to the American people, and to the UN, about Hussein and his WMDs, and all that other crap that we've already been over 100 times.

Your stupidity knows no bounds, does it?

[The One and Only...]

Yeah, the guy who helped to pull the country out of the Depression was a whole lot worse than Bush, who has completely trampled the constitution, eliminated public access to information, and sought to ban gay marriage via the constitution. Let us not also forget the whole space fiasco, that election year posturing that we can't afford to pay for anyway. We're talking about someone who places all of the above things higher than job creation and economic recovery.

FDR trampled the constitution far more than Bush has. Why do you think he tried to pack-in justices? Two of his acts were declared unconstitutional because of the interstate commerce clause. Look it up.

FDR was extremely fond of abrogating the civil rights of workers. Have you even looked at the NLRA before the Taft-Harley Amendment?

You talk about "job creation," but FDR was very anti-job creation in his legislature. If he wanted more jobs, he would have let wages fall faster than prices. Whether or not he actually knew what he was doing is irrelevant - supposedly Bush thought that Iraq had WMD (and I still think they did).

Surely, FDR is worse than the guy who praises the military he so eagerly puts in harm's way, and then cuts their endangerment pay and benefits. And we all know he's worse than the guy who lied outright to the American people, and to the UN, about Hussein and his WMDs, and all that other crap that we've already been over 100 times.

You can't accuse Bush of lying outright to anyone. The fact is that he probably had faulty intelligence. Daddy Bush certainly lied with imputiny, but there is no evidence that his son has done the same thing. Once you get into the Bush family's line and personal reasons for war, it's all pure speculation.

Oh, yeah - let's not forget that FDR had no problems with sending our troops into Europe to die. You could say that Japan attacked us, but - suprise! - if that were FDR's only motive, we would have attacked Japan. Let's face it; FDR wanted to liberate those people. Kinda like Bush in Iraq, no? Or do you oppose our involvement in WW2? If security were our only concern, we should have just waited for our allies to exhaust the Germans and blitzkrieg their ass.

[mburbank]

Calvin Coolidge.
Taft.
Nixon.
G.W. Bush.
Yep. FDR was the worst of the bunch.

If you were twice as bright as you think you are (and no one is) and a world champion speed reader, at fifteen you've had neither the reading time or life experience to render a useful judgement on FDR or really much of anything for that matter. You've had no responsability to speak of, you've never faced economic privation or war, never supported anyone, never had to pay a bill or face the law. You're years away from even the possability of real love or real sacrafice. Your opinions are strictly theoretical, utterly untempered by any practical application. One can only hope that in time you'll develop the capacity to be embarassed by yourself.

Either that or you're a creepy, lieing slug.

[The One and Only...]

I rank presidents by results rather than morals.

What was the deal with Taft, anyway? Sure, he might have been a member of the so-called "Skull and Bones", but other than such odd conspiracies he kicked ass...

[sspadowsky]

Of course, I'm sure the creation of the Public Works department, and giving jobs and paychecks to millions of unemployed people, was just a ploy to make them think they were getting.... uh... jobs and paychecks.

A very depressed economy is no time for job creation! Clearly, Roosevelt wanted the US (and world) economy to continue to stagnate and keep unemployment at 30%! Duh!

Man, why don't you admit you're just a freshman who doesn't know nearly as much as he thinks he does? If you remain as arrogant as you are right now, I guarantee the coming years will be a rude awakening for you.

[Anonymous]

I rank presidents by results rather than morals.

We know. Your Pinochet thread is still fresh in mind.

[thebiggameover]

You could say that Japan attacked us, but - suprise! - if that were FDR's only motive, we would have attacked Japan.

so we didnt drop a big ass bomb on japan? just checking...

[MEATMAN]

Personally, I try to stay as far away from politics as possible. I keep thinking if I say something, it'll offend some "special interest" group. Or maybe it's because I'd rather not receive explosives via UPS.

[Drew Katsikas]

You could say that Japan attacked us, but - suprise! - if that were FDR's only motive, we would have attacked Japan.

so we didnt drop a big ass bomb on japan? just checking...

Bombing Japan was not FDR's decision.

[MEATMAN]

You are so fucking wrong thebiggameover!

We dropped two bigass bombs on Japan, not one.

[Buffalo Tom]

Cliff, it's interesting that, in all your windblowing, you didn't directly address and refute Sspad's assertions. Instead, you try to bog down the discussion in a variation of the 'who's stronger, King Kong or Godzilla?' debate. So you don't deny that Bush has trampled on your constitution, that his proposed space program is a financial fiasco waiting to happen, that he dishonours the men and women in the military by ordering them to make the ultimate sacrifice while depriving their families of financial support, and that he's done nothing significant to encourage job growth, in fact overseeing the greatest number of lost jobs since the Depression?

The only claim you've argued against is that Bush lied to the American public about Iraq's WMD program, and it was a half-assed argument. To say that Bush didn't lie because he received faulty intelligence is flawed. Ultimate responsibilty for the conduct of any underling falls directly on the shoulders of a leader. All principled leaders know that. Even if it was faulty intelligence, Bush should have come out and publicly apologized for depending on such unreliable information. He's done nothing like that, to my knowledge; all I've read are brief mentions buried deep in articles that Bush admitted the intelligence he got was unreliable. If this situation is true, as you claim, then it's still a character failing the American people need to look hard at. This president seems eager to receive the kudos when something goes right, yet he has neither the humility nor the ethics to accept blame when the administration he constructed screws up.

However, we all know that the CIA submitted caveats expressing their misgivings about the reliability of all the intelligence reports they sent to the Oval Office prior to last year's invasion. It seems to me Bush did one of two things that led him to use the faulty intelligence in his argument for war. In the first scenario, he made the decision to willingly ignore the CIA for whatever reason; this points to a critical lack of good judgement, again another leadership failing. In the second scenario, he let the people in his inner circle of advisors at the White House convince him that the reports were nearly 100 % reliable. If this second scenario is true, then every American has to ask himself/herself whether he/she can trust a man who is so easily influenced by other people to go one way on a serious issue, when the evidence before him strongly points to the other way. Not to mention the issue of choosing a band of advisors whose analysis is faulty at best, if this second situation is true.

Your dismissive arrogance and stone-blind stupidity is a reflection of the arrogance and stupidity of the current American Administration you so futilely defend. It's no wonder that you have as warped a view of the world as you possess.

[mburbank]

Well, yeah, when you put it that way, but he still could take FDR in a fight! FDR was SUCK, man! He didn't have no RESULTS! Yeah! Like Rutherord B. Hayes, man! That dude? Results KING! And Hoover? Man, they CALLED that guy Johnny Results and it wan't foir nothin' neither!

[The One and Only...]

Hoover was a joke. He was just a pre-New Dealer.

You guys need to read about FDR. He was either horribly misinformed or utterly sick. I'm serious. Are you aware of the damage the Tenesse Valley Authority caused? Are you aware that giving unions so much power inevitibly led to less work? Are you aware that we could have avoided Pearl Harbor had we increased our military capabilities as a preemptive measure? For that matter, are you aware that we gave Japan many reasons to attack us, such as our trade embargo on them?


All that aside, Buffalo Tom, your remark about the responsibility falling on the leader is your personal opinion. I highly disagree. And to be quite frank, I really don't care if Bush lied or not, because that is not how I grade presidents anyway. This is why I think that Nixon is one of best presidents we've ever had.

Furthermore, you still have not made a convincing case. Look at Bush's opposition and how much they have lied about already. Look at former presidents - hell, look at Bill Clinton. I'm not talking about is BJ, either. Look at any politician, really - remember California? Oh, yeah, I forgot; you wanted to keep him in power because he sided with your political views.

I have a warped sense of reality? No, I don't - I know reality. You just have a warped sense of morality.

[Anonymous]

All that aside, Buffalo Tom, your remark about the responsibility falling on the leader is your personal opinion. I highly disagree.

Certainly nothing wrong with that. Of course, if you're ever in a leadership position (which seems unlikely) and your underlings screw up big time, I think you'll find that your boss will be slightly less than understanding on the matter.

Furthermore, you still have not made a convincing case. Look at Bush's opposition and how much they have lied about already. Look at former presidents - hell, look at Bill Clinton. I'm not talking about is BJ, either. Look at any politician, really - remember California?

One, my boy, a big part of presenting an effective argument is presenting. After you say "look at [someone]" you are supposed to list examples of what you want the audience to look at. I know that you don't present facts as well as you present your pseudo-intellectual drivel, but you should at least try. Of course, that's just my opinion. You may not want to try at all.

[The One and Only...]

I'd assume that you know what I am talking about.

[sspadowsky]

Where you're making the mistake is in assuming that you know what you're talking about.

What do you mean by "how much damage the TVA caused"? Environmentally? Don't give me that shit, Mr. the-air-is-cleaner-than-it-was-500-years-ago, because 1) you've already demonstrated your disregard for the environment by subscribing to that crap, and 2)It got "results," which is a presidential quality that, as we all know, gives you quite a stiffy.

The more you post, the more it becomes clear that you don't know shit. You're just a little hermit who's looking for someone to argue with. Likely it's the only social interaction you get.

[Buffalo Tom]

All that aside, Buffalo Tom, your remark about the responsibility falling on the leader is your personal opinion. I highly disagree. And to be quite frank, I really don't care if Bush lied or not, because that is not how I grade presidents anyway. This is why I think that Nixon is one of best presidents we've ever had.


Your arrogance and stupidity again blind you to the obvious. What I wrote about leadership is also the view shared by your fellow enfant terrible, George Dubya. In 2000, Bush campaigned on the idea that he would bring change to the White House, after 'an era of tarnished ideals'. This is lifted directly from Bush's speech (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/gopconvention/george_w_bush3.html) at the 2000 GOP convention:

Our nation's leaders are responsible ... to confront problems, not pass them on to others.

And to lead this nation to a responsibility era, a president himself must be responsible.


It's clear that your president is, at best, a moron, and, at worst, a hypocrite, when his altruistic words are juxtaposed with all the equivocating and finger-pointing he is currently doing with regards to the faulty intelligence issue. I have a warped sense of morality? Cliff, you shouldn't use words whose meanings you cannot even begin to comprehend.

[phnompehn]

He was either horribly misinformed or utterly sick.

How dare he be the victim of things he didn't control! I have half a mind to build a time machine, go back to the Depression, and bitch slap him. I'd say "Bitch! Stop being all sick and stuff all the time! What do you think you are? A polio patient?!"

[Brandon]

YOU KNOW WHO I HATE?

FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT!

YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE?

LAISSEZ-FAIRE CAPITALISM!

[Buffalo Tom]

Got any laissez-faire cookies for sale, Cliff?

[mburbank]

Fifteen year olds who use the phrase "And to be quite frank"... Laws.

It seems to me the bulk of your intellect occupies itself almost exclusively with narcisism. Your posts mostly boil down to 'look at me, I'm wonderful.'

Imagine what you might learn if you freed all the energy you spend on self congratulation and directed it toward inquiry.

[The One and Only...]

You people praise FDR without knowing what he did. Sad, really.

The TVA destroyed farmland. Farmland that tenant workers - predominantly black, and obviously in heavy poverty - labored over. Unfortunately, the government only compensated land owners.

Tom, the leader is nothing more than a figure head. All I care about is policy. Anything else is null, void, and intellectually bankrupt.

In addition, he did not say that all things a underling does falls under the leader. He said that a leader must be responsible. He did not say for what.

[Buffalo Tom]

Do you realize you've contradicted yourself in your very post? First, you criticize us for not being critical of FDR, implying he was personally responsible for the some of the supposed ruinous policies you have cited.

You people praise FDR without knowing what he did. Sad, really.


Then you say a leader is just a figure-head, as an apology for the poor leadership of George Bush.

Tom, the leader is nothing more than a figure head. All I care about is policy.


Which is it, Cliff? If you believe a leader is only a figure-head, then the language you have used to criticize FDR's presidency, speaking as if he was the sole impetus behind the New Deal, points, at the very least, to your sloppy thinking process. If you believe a leader has much to do with the formulation of his/her administrations's policies and setting the tone of conduct of his/her administration, then you must accept that Bush is a poor-assed leader for your country for the reasons I've cited already.

Geez, man, you really should stop pretending you're George F. Will on This Week.

[The One and Only...]

FDR WAS a figure head. Replace him with "FDR's administration". I don't feel like throwing in all the extra words.

I support most of Bush's policies, so I wouldn't call them him a "poor-assed" leader. Compared to Clinton, he's a miracle.

[kellychaos]

So explain Bush's departure from the mainstream of the current administration ... a point at which he really stuck his neck out and opposed their will. Name one time.

[sspadowsky]

All I care about is policy. Anything else is null, void, and intellectually bankrupt.
Oddly enough, that's a startlingly good description of Bush Administration policy.

In addition, he did not say that all things a underling does falls under the leader. He said that a leader must be responsible. He did not say for what.

This is idiotic beyond belief. If a leader is responsible, the fact that he is the leader, means he is responsible. He oversees what is carried out. That's what leaders do, which is why they are called leaders. Again, prickiness for prickiness' sake.

[The One and Only...]

Define responsible, because there is more than one way in which the term is applied.

I really don't see how much different this lie, if you could call it that, is any worse than what average politicians spew from their mouths during election season...

[Anonymous]

I really don't see how much different this lie, if you could call it that, is any worse than what average politicians spew from their mouths during election season...

Well let me summarize: When your state's governor is running for reelection, and says that he'll increase spending on education, and then doesn't once he's elected, no one is dead.

Compare that to lying about something to start a war, and the body count is slightly higher than zero.

Moreover, the governor lying about his plans for education might irritate the voters, whereas the president lying about WMDs has thoroughly pissed off most of the world. And don't give me any of that "those countries already hated us" BS.

[thebiggameover]

that old dude must have died. now there just a red x there...

[The One and Only...]

This comment has little to do with the war.

Soldiers in the military are trained to die. That's their job. The day the military becomes a gigantic workfare program is the day that we don't need one.

[Anonymous]

Soldiers in the military are trained to die. That's their job.

No, they're trained to fight/survive. Otherwise, their training would consist of learning to make themselves easy targets for enemy fire, and how to kill themselves with their own rifles.

Of course, Bush seems to believe their only purpose is to die, and is trying to instill that upon the troops by cutting their funding here and there.