From the CDA Blog
Today President Bush released his budget for the year 2006. It features so many failures for students that it’s way too long to post in here. So, here are a few of the many ways Bush breaks promises and forces students to pay more for college.
President Bush raises taxes on college students. The Bush Budget forces a tax on student loans that would charge students billions in additional taxes over the next ten years.
President Bush breaks promise on Pell Scholarships again - falling nearly $1,000 short of his $5,100 pledge. President Bush’s Budget breaks his promise to provide a $5,100 Pell scholarship, only increasing the maximum Pell by $100 this year, falling nearly $1,000 short of his promise to students.
President Bush forces millions of low and middle-income students to pay thousands more for their college loans. The Bush budget eliminates the current low fixed consolidation rate benefit. According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), this change will force the typical student borrower to pay $5,500 more for his college loans.
Bush Jeopardizes College for More than 1 Million Disadvantaged and Minority Students. The FY 06 Bush Budget completely eliminates funding for the GEAR UP, Upward Bound and Talent Search programs. As a result of these cuts, about 1.3 million students- 70 percent of whom are minorities will lose the support that they need to make it to college.
If that wasn’t enough, the budget for abstinence-only education was increased. Visit Daily Kos for a rant about how ridiculous it is to increase funding for this ineffective program.
Abortions are up during Bush’s term. Divorces are up during Bush’s term. And, thanks to abstinence-only education, it looks like teen sex is also up during Bush’s term.
I’m sure this won’t be the last post about Bush’s budget proposal.
Why anyone is surprised by this budget is beyond me. What we need to do is sign this petition to the president showing our disapproval of this joke of a budget .http://www.democrats.org/action/ We also need to let our representatives know about our disgust for this budget.
More importantly we need to let the media know. Didn’t the President say he was a compassionate conservative? Is he “born again”?
The bible has over 3000 references to taking care of the poor. Is the President’s faith just lip service? Make him practice what he preaches.
Call him out for the media to hear and see.
He also wants to cut farm subsidies mainly on cotton and rice farms. Seems like an interesting way to thank the people who helped him into office in the first place, maybe they will think twice next time.
I decided to post this reply here because your parent organization screened my comment on their recent post, entitled “Young People Oppose Privatization” ( http://www.collegedems.com/blog/archives/000307.php )
The post references a poll conducted by Rock the Vote, the AARP, and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Now, had the organization actually read the poll, they would have found that among the 291 people surveyed who fall into the “young people” category, 68% at least somewhat support Social Security privatization. 28% at least somewhat oppose it. The title that states, “Young People Oppose Privatization” is a complete lie.
I appreciate the fact that you allow open comments on your blog unlike your parent organization, and I hope that you will do research on what they claim before supporting their positions.
Andy,
Unlike a lot of our friends to the right, We do research before we jump on a bandwagon for any cause. Did you also know that there are polls out there that show when young people are explained how the program works and that they are losing benefits that their “support” drops dramactically.
on the surface supporting the so called reform seems like a logical idea a no brainer, it is only when you get to the meat and potatoes that you see what a sham this plan really is. Maybe you should do some reasearch before you accusse those on the left of unfair senorship. Oh and here’s a thought on censorship. Welcolme to our world.
I forgot to include my proof for my last post.
1)a New York Times Article private accounts are Risky many Workers say
February 3, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/politics/04young.html?oref=login
2) here is also what rock the vote found out poll of young adults found support for private accounts plummet in face of benefit cuts and , borrowing
http://www.rockthevote.com/media/press.php?ID=65
maybe someone shouldn’t be so selective with the info when stating ones case and maybe just maybe that is why your post to our parent organization was axed.
I am so disgusted, but not surprised, by his bullshit budget. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that this man has four more years left of unrelentless torture to the American public.
Robin,
Thank you for replying. Just so you know, I have done a lot of research on the subject of social security reform. I have written two papers on the subject, read many proposals, attended the Presidents speech on the subject, and also have read the complete text of the poll findings via rock the vote. If you would like me to compile a list of references I have based my opinions on, I can do that for you, however it would take a great deal of time.
It is true that in the actual poll data, after being explained some of the risks that may or may not be involved in privatization (most of the risks tested in the survey were extrapolated because the survey was given by groups who oppose the proposal), people did tend to show less support for it. Now, personally I do not believe this poll was conducted in a fair manner, but thats personal opinion. What I am trying to say here is that the headline of the article, “Young People Oppose Privatization” is very very biased. In the question asking young people if they support privatization, people showed overwhelming support. If the title of the article had been “After being explained possible risks involved, younger people less likely to favor privatization ” I would see less of a problem. However, this was not the case. The person who wrote the article greatly misinterpreted the data in forming the title of his story.
I am not arguing for Bush’s Social Security reform plan here. I believe Privatization will help the system, but I am not arguing my beliefs, I’m stating that the poll data was misleading when reported in the blogs of various democratic organizations. If people who are unclear on the subject happen to stumble upon an article and read the headline without looking at the raw poll data, they will believe that young people do not support Privatization, which is NOT the case whatsoever.
And just as my stance on Social Security is not a part of this issue, neither is free speech in the college Democrats of America’s Blog. It is their blog and their website, they have every right to deny my comment from being seen, I just find it ironic that a party who usually supports freedom of speech and encourages protesting based on beliefs would screen my comment.
Thanks for listening,
Andy
Andy,
I would actually like some info on privatization. I don’t just like to take someones word that a plan is a good plan. I remember this administration also telling me that Iraq had WMD’S and we all know how that turned out.
The stock market is a gamble. To make people think that there is no risk or that they are guareenteed a return is irresponsible. My father has worked for Jersey Bell his whole life and he saved money thru an IRA. He has lost some money from his portfolio. Stocks lose value not all but some do. I just think instead Mr. Bush pushing his “reform ” as the magic pill.
Maybe he should be more upfront with the details.
From my personal experiance, i have lost $1000 in the stock market. So when G.W. says that we are going to put all our eggs in the stock market, you can see how i am worried.
Andy-
Thanks for coming by and presenting info, in a pretty well spoken, if conservative, way. Our website is not going to be censoring good post writers anytime soon, so I hope you come back and talk with us again. The danger of an all liberal, or all conservative, blog is ending up in the the echo chamber, and having you around (with our other republicans) helps keep that from happening.
You’ll also find that lots of people will read what you say, edit it, attack it, write about it, and be energized by it. We don’t have that many republicans that come here (maybe 15 vistors out of our daily 100-200), so you’ll get a lot of responses, as this post shows.
So I hope you come back often…
as for what you said:
neither “young people support” young people do not support” privitization is really true. Young people don’t care. When asked if they might support or not support it no one cared. It’s like saying “young people support medicaid reform” - we all know that some do, some don’t, and a sad sad majority don’t really even know what medicaid does. But I have seen several polls, including by Zogby who I think does social issue polling quite well, which show that, of those who care at all, and vote, privitization is looked upon negativly. When told that privitization will include borrowing large amounts of money which could lead to raising taxes and/or benifit reductions, but also that privitization could lead to much higher yields on their private acounts, the same young people are overwhelmingly against it. Young people know about credit card debt, and I think they see privitization as credit card debt in order to buy stocks, something any stockmarket guy will tell you is a really bad idea.
Other groups, when asked those same two questions (do you support/oppose? and “privitization includes these two sides, do you support or oppose?) tend to break down less often in favor of privitzation than apposed to it the first time, but mosty unsure. They become only slightly less likely to support privitization the second time. So obviuosly in some way young people do truly have a greater fear of privitzation. Or at least young people who care at all, and are registered to vote…ie, the ones that count.
So you’re right that “young people oppose privitzation” doesn’t tell the whole story, most headlines don’t. But I think the whole story does, according to the polls I’ve seen, tell the whole story as best as 4 words can. The polling I’ve seen that shows otherwise has not been for youth who voted in 04…and considering it was the largest youth turn out in decades, I don’t think anyone who skipped voting in 04 really is going to vote in 06 or 08, and thus I don’t really need to know their opinion about ss reduction.
wow, not the most literate post. it’s 4am and I shouldn’t really be up. especially when I said “the whole story does, according to the polls I’ve seen, tell the whole story”
I obviouly meant the headline tells it. there are also many spelling issues and points where I left out important syntax or connecting words. I hope it still makes sense and please don’t quote me on it.
That’s ok, John. Still better than this bushism that I couldn’t help but post…
Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.”—Explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005
That’s pretty flippin’ confusing. But - seriously - he knows what he’s talking about! ::swings coffee mug back and forth::
Thanks again for letting me post and listening to my arguments. I agree with you when you say you would like to see an actual plan put forth by the Bush Administration instead of them just being in support of certain concepts. I have found an AP article summarizing the positions Bush has taken and I think it does a pretty good job of laying out Bush’s plan from what I have heard so far. The article can be found here.
I understand your risks about the Stock Market, and they are all valid points. The stock market is vulnerable and subject to fluctuation. For those who choose not to take the slight risk (it is very slight over the long term) of investing in mutual funds, the private accounts will have the option of investing in government bonds instead. These government bonds are the same thing your money is being held in now in the Social Security trust fund. The bonds have a lower rate of return, but are much safer. Some people may have lost money on the stock market, but a fellow Omaha native, Warren Buffet has made billions off of it. There are two sides to every issue.
As for the article about whether or not young people support privatization, I haven’t really seen too many polls on the subject besides the one that the article was referring to. The article was summarizing findings from the poll and in my mind misinterpreting the data. I have no idea whether or not young people actually support privatization, that wasn’t really my point. I wish more young people cared about the issue considering how much it affects them, but unfortunately that is not the case.
I think one of the biggest upsides of Bush’s proposal is the idea of inheritance of wealth. Under his proposal, if a person died a year before he or she was eligible to start collecting benefits, their personal account would be paid out to their family instead of just being used by the government as the current system works now. It allows for more personal decision making, and puts peoples’ futures further into their hands.
I’d like to end this with a quote from a great American President, FDR. Roosevelt’s vision for Social Security in its infancy can be seen in this Quote,
“In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles–first, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”
January 17, 1935 | President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
FDR was for privatization, and it seems less like President is re-inventing the Social Security system and more like he is just taking it to the next step it was ultimately intended to go to. I really honestly believe this is the best thing possible for the future of Social Security, and I’m glad the President is stepping forward to confront the “third-rail” of American Politics. I think it shows that he actually cares about the younger generation and the future. He could have very well done what many before him have done and just ignored the problem, but he was brave enough to confront the issue.
And I’ll be visiting here often. I subscribe to your RSS feed, and I enjoy reading about what the other side thinks. And don’t worry, this is probably far from the last comment you will see from me. Looking forward to replies … Andy
and by the way, FDR’s message to Congress regarding Social Security can be found at http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1935b.htm
I like your use of sourcing Andy, but not your analysis of what FDR was really saying. FDR was saying that the first pillar of a his New Deal plan was an insurance that no retired (and now disabled is on that list) persons should ever be without some small type of benifits. His idea of personal acounts was a good one, and one that I support completey. But it didn’t pass, if you look at that same site and read some of the opposition speaches and some of the other policy proposals he laid out, because you can’t pass a personal acount scheme in the middle of a recession.
1998 would have been a great time to do what you’re talking about….that is leaving SS the way it is in principle, beefing it up to cover the age gaps that will show up (the lockbox we all heard about in 2000), and then helping people use govornment to create their own private acounts with long term pay out mutual funds.
But now is not the time, and Warren Buffett, our great rich Omahan, knows that. Why not now? Because getting rid of social security is the only way to make Bush’s plan float with any degree of fiscal solvencey. Even then it will require about a trillion dollars in loans, but that’s beside the point. We need SS because it is a saftey net. It is an insurance policy. No elderly person in america should ever live on the streets…that’s what ss does. I don’t care if 90% of the benificiaries would get more from a private acount. As long as 10% won’t, I will be against it. Because SS is an insurance policy. That’s why it’s called SOCIAL SECURITY.
But why is Buffett against borrowing money to make private acounts along with SS as it is? Two reasons. First he knows Bush would never do that. Bush and senior officials with him and in the senate and house have been clear for years that getting rid of SS is a principle aim of theirs. It goes against their idea of govornment. So Warren is against it because he knows that if a bill gets passed on Bush’s watch, it will end up gutting social security in some way.
He’s also against it because borrowing money to invest in the stock market is always a bad idea. Everyone knows it in fact. If you go to your financial advisor, and say, “hey, I don’t have any cash, but I want to borrow 6,000 dollars (that’s 2 trillion split 300 million ways) to invest” he’ll say get a new advisor because I’m not going to do that for you. And when you have the kind of debt america has, it becomes an even worse idea. Because every dollar America borrows now has to be paid back at an even higher rate than our previous loans.
FDR would be ashamed of Bush’s proposals.
Warren Buffet is already.
College Democrats is where we try to stop it.
I will be chaging back to a democrat .Bush is looking out fo the
rich people only .the will not recive help .