Just the Facts

Sparx

New Member
Tuesday, April 13th, 2004

JK Today: John Kerry continues his College Tour in Rhode Island today, where he will visit the University of Rhode Island at Providence. There, he will discuss a newly released report that shows how the high cost of tuition is putting a college education out of reach for more and more families.


George W. Bush: Pricing Families Out of College

· A college education has always been one of the surest roads to the American Dream. Today, the fastest-growing and best-paying jobs require a college degree.

· For years, this country has helped millions of students down that road. But today, the dream of a college education is slipping further and further from the reach of average Americans because the price of college tuition is rising faster and faster than at any time in history.

· Just this year, tuition rose a record 28% in America. Because of this increase, 220,000 Americans did not attend college this year for the simple reason that it cost too much.

· After three years in office, George Bush has not lifted a finger to help college students. In fact, his failed policies have directly contributed to the rising price of tuition. George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy have left states without any money for education, and colleges everywhere have been forced to raise tuition.

· During the 2000 campaign, George Bush ran around promising that he’d expand college scholarships and increase student aid. But when he got to the White House, he did neither.

· But here’s what he did do: George Bush wanted to make college students pay $1.3 billion more for their student loans. And he moved mountains to protect his billions in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

· If hardworking families think that keeping tax cuts for people making over $200,000 a year is more important than keeping college affordable for 220,000 Americans, then George W. Bush is their man. But John Kerry is offering a new direction for America.

· John Kerry’s Compact with the Next Generation ensures that every American can afford four years of college. And it ensures that when students leave college, they aren’t so burdened with debt that they spend the rest of their lives paying it off.

John Kerry: A Plan to Win in Iraq

· John Kerry has laid out a plan to win the peace in Iraq. Today, we are paying the price for this Administration’s failure to come up with such a plan and their decision to go-it-alone in Iraq. It’s time for a new direction.

· The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, and John Kerry is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society.

· John Kerry has a three-step plan to proceed in Iraq:

1. If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them, and we should give our troops the equipment and the support they need to fight.

2. The Administration has finally acknowledged their failures by turning to U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to develop a formula for an interim Iraqi government that each of the major Iraqi factions can accept. We must let him accomplish this mission. And the United States should say in advance that we stand by the plan he proposes.

3. We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers. The events of the past week will make other countires reluctant to put their citizens at risk. But we can bring in the international community if we place the remainder of the Iraqi transition under international authority.

· While the responsibility for security must remain in the hands of the U.S. military, the United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people.


George W. Bush: Middle-Class Misery

· President Bush says his economic policies are helping the middle class but what today’s report shows is that President Bush is out of touch with Americans and out of credibility on the economy.

· Under George W. Bush, middle-class families are hurting like never before. The Middle-Class Misery Index combines seven different indicators: median family income, college tuition, health costs, gasoline costs, bankruptcies, homeownership and private-sector job growth. In the last three years, the Index fell 13 points – the largest three-year fall on record.

· After four years of policies that have hurt middle-class families, George Bush is actually running on the promise that he’ll give us four more of the same. But in 2003, the bread-and-butter issues that families talk about at the kitchen table all got worse:
_ Wages are stagnant
_ College tuition shot up 13 percent – the largest increase on record
_ Health premiums went up 11 percent – the largest increase since 1977
_ Gasoline went up 15 percent – the second largest increase since 1980

· The simple truth is George Bush can’t see the problem. He does not seem to even care about the middle-class squeeze, let alone have a strategy to deal with it.

· George Bush has passed tax cut after tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Because he has spent so much on the wealthy and spent so far beyond our means, George Bush has not done a thing to make sure hardworking families can pay for health care, college, or anything else. Bush opposed fiscal relief to help states stave off record tuition increases, and he broke campaign promises to do something about high gas costs.

John Kerry: Easing the Squeeze

· Americans need a President who cares about making sure that people have good-paying jobs and can afford health care and college. George Bush had his chance to do something and didn’t. It’s time for a new direction. It’s time for John Kerry.

· John Kerry offers America a new direction. He has a plan to create 10 million new jobs in America during his first four years. 98% of Americans and 99% of all businesses will pay lower taxes under John Kerry. Finally, middle-class families will get $225 billion in tax cuts that will help them pay for health care and tuition costs.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
None of those are "facts", Sparx. Really - look it up in the dictionary. "Facts" are real things that can be proven. What you've given us are lies and spin.

This one in particular cracked me up:

"1. If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them, and we should give our troops the equipment and the support they need to fight."

You know John Kerry voted AGAINST funding the troops, right?

Plus that, George Bush doesn't control college tuitions. :duh:

We are a middle-class family. We're not miserable. In fact, we're doing better than ever before. We're voting for Bush.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
I am a Master level student finishing my degree, and I got more tax breaks for being a student then ever before.

Getting more troops? Isn't that what Bush and them have done when its needed? As opposed to Kerry, who blocked funding those troops?

Who pays taxes btw? Did you know the bottom 50% of taxpayers (by income) pay only 5% of the total government revenue? Did you know that even after all the tax cuts take effect the top 1% of taxpayers will still pay 14% of total government revenue?

Where is this they pay less coming from? I guess the people who get the most benefit from government services (considering entitlements take up the largest amount of government spending) should pay less than 5% for services?
 

SurfaceTension

New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
This one in particular cracked me up:
This one got me:
The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America....

...The Administration has finally acknowledged their failures by turning to U.N. representative...
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Quick tax lesson

Following up on what FromTexas said...

Truth about Taxes
by Anonymous

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men-the poorest-would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
The sixth would pay $3;
The seventh $7;
The eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man-the richest-would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement-until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six-the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Unfortunately, Liberals cannot grasp this straight-forward logic!
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Originally posted by Sparx
Tuesday, April 13th, 2004

1. If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them, and we should give our troops the equipment and the support they need to fight.
I like this one. Wasn't it just in the news that the military commanders said that they don't need more troops?
 

Pete

Repete
Re: Quick tax lesson

Originally posted by ylexot
Following up on what FromTexas said...

Truth about Taxes
by Anonymous

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men-the poorest-would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
The sixth would pay $3;
The seventh $7;
The eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man-the richest-would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement-until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six-the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Unfortunately, Liberals cannot grasp this straight-forward logic!
:lol:
 
K

Kizzy

Guest
Re: Quick tax lesson

Originally posted by ylexot
Following up on what FromTexas said...

Truth about Taxes
by Anonymous

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men-the poorest-would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
The sixth would pay $3;
The seventh $7;
The eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man-the richest-would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement-until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six-the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Unfortunately, Liberals cannot grasp this straight-forward logic!

As many times as I've read this over the years, it never gets old. :lol:
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Oops. I guess that was a couple days ago. They are now asking for more troops and Bush is willing to send them.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by ylexot
Oops. I guess that was a couple days ago. They are now asking for more troops and Bush is willing to send them.

That's fine with me. The military should make that call, not the politicians in Washington. Bush should trust they know what they need.

Let them do their job.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
By the way - aside from the deterioration of state funding *recently*, college's costs have been increasing faster than inflation for twenty years. This includes private AS WELL AS state-funded public schools. They're even outpacing health care costs. Frankly, I think it's bullsh*t. They charge more, because more people are going, and they'll PAY for it.

Somehow, Kerry is going to give it all away but NOT raise taxes.

No sir!
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Originally posted by SamSpade
By the way - aside from the deterioration of state funding *recently*, college's costs have been increasing faster than inflation for twenty years. This includes private AS WELL AS state-funded public schools. They're even outpacing health care costs. Frankly, I think it's bullsh*t. They charge more, because more people are going, and they'll PAY for it.

Somehow, Kerry is going to give it all away but NOT raise taxes.

No sir!
Good point. It might just be a supply/demand issue.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Originally posted by SamSpade
By the way - aside from the deterioration of state funding *recently*, college's costs have been increasing faster than inflation for twenty years. This includes private AS WELL AS state-funded public schools. They're even outpacing health care costs. Frankly, I think it's bullsh*t. They charge more, because more people are going, and they'll PAY for it.

Somehow, Kerry is going to give it all away but NOT raise taxes.

No sir!

Yes, I always love the taking of colleges costs and health insurance premiums onto Bush. They are some of the funniest things out there since health insurance premiums have been climbing greatly since the early 80s. There was a lull in the mid 1990s.

During the mid1990s is when managed care took hold which allowed insurers and employers to control costs. When this took hold, it created a savings for a few years that ranged from $30-$50 billion.

The real reasons for increases comes from a number of factors. 1) people wanted more and more in their plans in the late 1990s during the boom -- getting more means paying more, 2) as the cycle busted, employers often tried to maintain the same plans but could afford to cover less -- difference is passed to employees, 3) People are choosing plans with greater freedom -- which means less managed care (i.e. they want to pick their doctor from outside a list, they want to not have to verify when they will go in the hospital, they do not want to work within set guidlines) and the less in control of the insurance provider, the greater the costs are, 4) climbing mandates on insurers at the state level -- over 1400 new mandates on insurers over the past ten year period -- mandates cause restrictions and things that must be done which cost money, 5) health care costs are climbing and have been for a long time (not in presidential powers to control) -- prescription drugs was one of the worst (didn't Bush do something about this for one of the largest groups effected by it? :wink:)

As for college costs? Most colleges out there are under state authority. Costs are rising because colleges provide lots of services, new programs, updating technology, attract qualified professional staff (away from private), and other issues. College costs have shot up in recent years more due to state cuts (not federal). State cuts to higher education have happened due to deficits from continually increasing spending at dramatic rates during 90s growth instead of recognizing they depend heavily on cyclically effected taxes (i.e. sales and income) and business nature says BOOM then BUST. Some states prepared better. Then there were states like California. Most all were effected. When cutting across the board, they cut higher education. You better take up those complaints with your state politicians instead of a man who has little control over that.
 

Sparx

New Member
During the mid1990s is when managed care took hold which allowed insurers and employers to control costs. When this took hold, it created a savings for a few years that ranged from $30-$50 billion.

You really think that's the reason cost were held?...NO WAY!

It was because Hillary was standing in the foreground with a REAL Medical health plan not a scratch of the surface plan like bush gave to AARP. Why they went for that I'll never understand.
 

tlatchaw

Not dead yet.
Originally posted by Sparx
During the mid1990s is when managed care took hold which allowed insurers and employers to control costs. When this took hold, it created a savings for a few years that ranged from $30-$50 billion.

You really think that's the reason cost were held?...NO WAY!

It was because Hillary was standing in the foreground with a REAL Medical health plan not a scratch of the surface plan like bush gave to AARP. Why they went for that I'll never understand.

Oh yeah, Hillary blocking the way with her secret cabinet scared the health insurance companies SO MUCH that they held the costs down. How's that ocean-front property in Arizona?
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
During the mid1990s is when managed care took hold which allowed insurers and employers to control costs. When this took hold, it created a savings for a few years that ranged from $30-$50 billion.

My wife's social work career included hospital work, where she dealt with insurance companies. To this day, she says "managed care" as an epithet. She describes the insanity this way--just because an insurer OKs a treatment doesn't mean the insurer has agreed to pay its share. If you're the care provider, that would drive you nuts.
 

Voter2002

"Fill your hands you SOB!
H. Clinton's health care plan? Gee, correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a plan similiar to Canada's...and here's some info on how great Canada's plan is....

"...The most visible consequence of socialized medicine in Canada is in the poor quality of services. Health care has become more and more impersonal. Patients often feel they are on an assembly line. Doctors and hospitals already have more patients than they can handle and no financial incentive to provide good service. Their customers are not the ones who write the checks anyway. "

And, you always hear that it's a major fault of republicans for having BIG government......

"...A second lesson is the danger of political compromise. One social policy tends to lead to another. Take, for example, the introduction of hospital insurance in Canada. It encouraged doctors to send their patients to hospitals because it was cheaper to be treated there. The political solution was to nationalize the rest of the industry. Distortions from one government intervention often lead to more intervention."

..and we all know that more government intervention leads to BIG government!
 

Sparx

New Member
..and we all know that more government intervention leads to BIG government!

So, why should the government be involved in who marries who, what I watch on TV, what I listen to on the radio? etc, etc., etc.
 

Pete

Repete
Originally posted by Sparx
..and we all know that more government intervention leads to BIG government!

So, why should the government be involved in who marries who, what I watch on TV, what I listen to on the radio? etc, etc., etc.
For the same reason we should not just disband police forces and the FBI and just trust people to be decent. :duh:
 
Top