Kerry served in Vietnam

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

The evidence is clear that the quality of a student’s teacher is the single biggest factor in the quality of a child's education.

NO I would have to say parents are the single biggest factor that and the student. If little johnny doesn't care to be at school and Mommy and Daddy won't beat his butt.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Which is why home schooled kids consistently outperform those with government school educations.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/rudner1999/Rudner2.asp#Fig1

Quote

The evidence is clear that the quality of a student’s teacher is the single biggest factor in the quality of a child's education.

NO I would have to say parents are the single biggest factor that and the student. If little johnny doesn't care to be at school and Mommy and Daddy won't beat his butt.

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

This shows Anvil's lack of understanding of how the real world works and that just because something is written down doesn't mean that's the way it is.

Bwwwaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha

Tax cuts causing deficits...state deficits caused by the federal government...the Executive Branch spending us into insolvency all on its lonesome withing broad guidelines....dear GOD what creativity!

Your man Kerry is angry about the Bush performance on education when his beloved senior Senator from Massachusetts wrote the education bill. Now that's funny. What's even funnier is that Kerry's powerful union backers - the NEA - are without question the largest impediment to education reform today.

Everyone does have the opportunity to go to college. There is not one college in America that will deny anyone the right to fill out the application for admission.

I really like this one:

Quote

***- If you had problems with the law (NCLB), why didn't you bring them up on the Senate floor prior to the vote?

Just because John Kerry voted 'yea' on a piece of legislation, it is wrong to conclude that he agrees wholeheartedly with every single provision of that legislation, or that he wholeheartedly disagrees with every provision in every bill on which he voted 'nay'. It just doesn't work that way. And this should be clear to anyone with more than a sixth-grade understanding of our government.

Of course it should - keep at it and you'll get it soon, I have great confidence.

What should be clear to you is that Senator Kerry and Kennedy and Dascle et al had the opportunity to speak about such funding during the entire process and use their offices to bring it to the attention of the public. They didn't.

Quote

***- Kids learn math in third world nations on dirt floors better than in many American classrooms.

And then grow up to live in poverty.

In poverty and better educated in mathematics without benefit of computers in the classroom.

OOOOOh I'm dead sexy.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Which is why home schooled kids consistently outperform those with government school educations.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/rudner1999/Rudner2.asp#Fig1




***.

The truth, but not the whole truth.


Home schooled kids have self-selected, well educated teachers

(a) Not all kids have such parents. My parents couldn't have done it - they grew up during the depression and had to leave school at 13 (Mom) and 14 (Dad). I taught algebra to my Mom while I was in 7th grade.

(b) The economy couldn't stand it if all parents were to home-school their kids.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

(b) The economy couldn't stand it if all parents were to home-school their kids.

Funny, they said the same thing about Blacksmiths when the automobile was invented.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

(b) The economy couldn't stand it if all parents were to home-school their kids.

Funny, they said the same thing about Blacksmiths when the automobile was invented.

So - how many blacksmiths do you see around your home town these days?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

(b) The economy couldn't stand it if all parents were to home-school their kids.

Funny, they said the same thing about Blacksmiths when the automobile was invented.

So - how many blacksmiths do you see around your home town these days?

My point exactly.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Tax cuts causing deficits...state deficits caused by the federal government...the Executive Branch spending us into insolvency all on its lonesome withing broad guidelines....dear GOD what creativity!

Yeah, that is pretty creative misinterpretation of everything that I said.

Tax cuts don't cause deficits, but they contribute to how big it is. You have a deficit when you spend more than you make. If you reduce your income your deficit increases. Let me see if I can make it simple enough for you, 3-5 is bad 2-5 is even worse.

When did I say anything about state deficits? You commented that the fed doesn't make state budgets. I commented that they do give them money. Don't know how you twisted that interpretation out of it.

Regarding the executive branch spending us into insolvency, once again, that has nothing to do with what I said. You commented that the pres doesn't appropriate funds so can't possibly give more money to education. However, it is a fact that they direct where funds that have been appropriated go.

Quote

OOOOOh I'm dead sexy

Well, at least you have your looks. Because your ability to understand simple comments is pretty poor. Of course you have said that you're blond.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

(b) The economy couldn't stand it if all parents were to home-school their kids.

Funny, they said the same thing about Blacksmiths when the automobile was invented.

So - how many blacksmiths do you see around your home town these days?

My point exactly.

So you're saying that all those educated, employed Moms (and a few Dads) who'd have to give up their jobs to homeschool their kids are currently contributing nothing to the economy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

Your creative mind is still at work.

Tax cuts do not cause deficits. Spending causes deficits. When your man Kerry talks deficits while proposing trillions in spending, I laugh at him. Hard. Look at what federal revenues have historically done before and after tax cuts and get back to me.

State budgetary problems are their own to solve - not the federal government's. Everytime sKerry or anyone else infers such to be a federal problem I laugh. Hard.

I am dead sexy. Just dead sexy.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

So, you're saying that if you spend the same, but reduce the amount of tax collected, that will not increase the deficit? Because if that's what you're saying, you're insane. If it's not, than you are admitting that tax cuts DO CONTRIBUTE to the size of the deficit.

Quote

Look at what federal revenues have historically done before and after tax cuts and get back to me.

Ok

2001
IRS operating cost 8,771,510,000
Collections 2,128,831,182,000

2002
Operating costs 9,063,471,000
Collections 2,016,627,269,000 [r]

2003
Operating costs 9,401,407,000
Collections 1,952,929,045,000

Hmmm, historically, Bush's tax cut has increased the operating expenses for the IRS and decreased revenue.

Quote

State budgetary problems are their own to solve - not the federal government's. Everytime sKerry or anyone else infers such to be a federal problem I laugh. Hard.

Public education is a nationwide social issue. Improving education will improve the status of our nation as a whole.

[TheAnvil 0]

That's nice. Good work. Incomplete, but more than I expected. Now put recession start and stop dates in there, expand your very very very very very very basic model and continue on your learning journey.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

I answered your question, how about answering mine.

So, you're saying that if you spend the same, but reduce the amount of tax collected, that will not increase the deficit?

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

So, you're saying that if you spend the same, but reduce the amount of tax collected, that will not increase the deficit? Because if that's what you're saying, you're insane. If it's not, than you are admitting that tax cuts DO CONTRIBUTE to the size of the deficit.

no you are confused, if you lower the tax RATE that helps the put more money into the taxpayers hands. This lets more products and services to be consumed. This will cause more profits, this in a normal economy will more than make up for the tax rate change, as long as spending stays the same.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

no you are confused, if you lower the tax RATE that helps the put more money into the taxpayers hands. This lets more products and services to be consumed. This will cause more profits, this in a normal economy will more than make up for the tax rate change, as long as spending stays the same.

Nope, confusion still on your side of the fence. Law of diminishing returns....

If you, say, give everyone $100 tax cut. Assuming they actually spend that full $100 on widget, and assuming that widget had a 100% profit margin, you will then tax that $100 and recoup a portion of it.

So, the gov't gives up $100, and maybe, if all the stars align, will get a maximum of $31 back. That's a net loss of $69.

Edit to add detail:

What you are proposing is the principle of the Laffer Curve and supply side economics. And it's not totally baseless. The Laffer Curve shows that after a certain point, increased tax rates reduce people's incentive to work because they see less return for it. Laffer demonstrated this to Cheyney in 1974 by drawing it on a napkin. For this theory to work, we would have to be at that point or higher already. I don't believe that we are.

And as far as supply side economics, they can work. It worked for Reagan. But there's one single factor why it worked that doesn't exist today. Reagan decreased revenue which increasd the deficit. The deficit is sustained through the issuance of government bonds. The economy increased as a result of Reagan's policy. But again, there's one single factor as to why. Because as a result of his policy interest rates DECREASED. Without a corresponding decrease in interest rates, a supply side policy won't work. Considering interest rates are at 1%, and the fed is constantly telling us that they will be increasing in the near future, the principles of a supply side policy will only serve to increase the deficit, which when coupled with an increase in interest rates will result in an economic DOWNTURN.

[Greene 0]

And, we get tired of hearing bitching from the "left"

[Kennedy 0]

The problem here is you're treating the government like a business.

They're not there to take all my money and spend it as they see fit. Communism, much?

They should get out of my business, stop spending more than the rest of the country, and do what it was intended, rather than whatever it wants. But then reality steps in.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

So, you're saying that if you spend the same, but reduce the amount of tax collected, that will not increase the deficit? Because if that's what you're saying, you're insane. If it's not, than you are admitting that tax cuts DO CONTRIBUTE to the size of the deficit.

no you are confused, if you lower the tax RATE that helps the put more money into the taxpayers hands. This lets more products and services to be consumed. This will cause more profits, this in a normal economy will more than make up for the tax rate change, as long as spending stays the same.

Well, that's one theory. Take a look at Federal revenues since 2001 and you will see that it hasn't worked in the "real world" that you conservatives claim to live in.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

The problem here is you're treating the government like a business.

They're not there to take all my money and spend it as they see fit. Communism, much?

They should get out of my business, stop spending more than the rest of the country, and do what it was intended, rather than whatever it wants. But then reality steps in.

I agree with that. I ran a small business (software) for 14 years and by the simple expedient of spending less than my revenues every year, I always turned a profit.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

No you didn't answer my question. You began to, but stopped WAAAAAAAY short. I asked you what federal revenues have historically done following tax cuts. Looking at two instances (GWB's 1st and 2nd tax cuts, the latter of which I didn't support the structure of) doesn't do so, though it does start.

If you'd actually answered the question, you would have found that following tax cuts federal revenues actually increase historically. This is true for a myriad of reasons. You gave two examples historically close together (though I didn't check your data, I just assumed it to be correct).

To answer your question, you will always increase your deficit if you maintain spending constant and reduce your income. It is your pretension that cutting taxes decreases your income that I dispute. The current decrease was due to recession - not tax cuts. Though I still think the structure of the second one was stupid.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

GWB's 1st and 2nd tax cuts, the latter of which I didn't support the structure of)

Interesting, every major supply side or Keynesian economist I've read on the subject of Bush's tax cuts has the exact opposite opinion. That the first was a mistake, and the second was structured more soundly.

[TheAnvil 0]

I thought the second tax cut's elimination of the double taxation of corporate dividends was a horrible idea. The first one gave tax relief where it was needed.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,150]

Federal tax revenues in $Billions since 2000:

2000 2,025.2
2001 1,991.2
2002 1,853.2
2003 1,782.3

2004 Income tax revenue is projected to fall again.

Souce: US General Accounting Office.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

No you didn't answer my question. You began to, but stopped WAAAAAAAY short. I asked you what federal revenues have historically done following tax cuts.

Ok, answer. Decreased initially, deficits increased, but after economic expansion they revenues did eventually increase. But, history has nothing to do with it, because the same conditions don't exist.

There was Kennedy's tax cut. However, his tax cut, unlike GWB was a demand side tax cut. Initially federal revenue decreased, but after the economic stimulus on the demand side, along with falling interest rates, the economic expansion allowed federal revenues to grow after a few years.

There was Reagan's tax cut. This was a supply side cut. And again, revenue decreased, deficit increased. However, the economy expanded thanks to falling interest rates and decreased inflation. That expansion resulted in eventual increases in federal revenues.

Now we have GWB's supply side cut. There has been a decrease in revenue and increase in deficit, just like the others. However, unlike the others, interest rates will rise, inflation will rise. The economy will not expand at a level sufficient enough to make up for the losses, revenues will not meet or exceed what they were before the cuts, and the deficit will increase. Look at GWB's own numbers. He predicts a rising deficit over 10 years. It's a bad bad move.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Look at GWB's own numbers. He predicts a rising deficit over 10 years. It's a bad bad move.

He predicts a deficit as far out as projections are made (10 years). There is no indication that the deficit will be eliminated in 10 years, or 20, or 30...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.