Taxpayers' refund checks will increase nearly 27% to an average $2,500 per family early next year, according to new forecasts from tax experts and economists, who say the windfalls will aid consumers, the economy and President Bush's re-election campaign.
As a result of the 2003 tax cut, about 8 million families who did not receive refunds this year will likely get them in 2004, says tax software publisher Petz Enterprises. It estimates refunds for the tax season will go to 108 million households vs. 100 million this year and will total $227 billion. That's up 38% from 2003. Merrill Lynch estimates total refunds from February through May will be up 34% from this year.
The Treasury Department (news - web sites) estimates it will collect $100 billion less in taxes in the first half of 2004 than it would have without the tax cut. That reflects not only the higher refunds but also reduced tax payments by those who don't get refunds.
The refunds will fatten bank accounts and, if spent, boost the economy because consumer spending accounts for 70% of U.S. economic activity. That will help ensure that the economic gains underway do not fizzle out, and it will ultimately benefit the 9 million Americans who are out of work.
An improving economy would aid Bush's re-election hopes and blunt Democratic criticism of job losses and economic weakness during his tenure. But the cuts, along with increased federal spending, have contributed to a record federal budget deficit that is estimated to hit $494 billion this year.
"There is a real strong correlation between after-tax income growth and the share of the vote the incumbent party candidate gets," says Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wachovia Securities in Charlotte who has studied the historical links between economics and elections.
"The economy should actually help Bush," he says.
The larger refunds aren't an accident. Because the tax cut was passed midyear and was retroactive, taxpayers are entitled to more money to reflect their tax overpayments from the first half of 2003, unless they adjusted their withholding later in the year - something few likely did, says Craig Petz, head of marketing at Petz Enterprises, which publishes TaxBrain software.
The biggest winners, Petz says, will be the approximately 10 million married couples with a combined income of $46,700 to $56,800. Those couples dropped from the 27% bracket to the 15% bracket.
Other winners will include parents who had their first child in 2003. They will be eligible for a $1,000 credit. Married couples may also receive benefits.
With the job market improving, more consumers likely will feel comfortable spending their refund money rather than saving it or using it to pay off bills.
"There should be a pretty good propensity to spend," says Kathy Bostjancic, a senior economist with Merrill Lynch.
That spending will be on top of a spree consumers went on earlier this year. Not only did workers see their withholding taxes cut midyear, but $14 billion in child-tax-credit checks hit mailboxes right before the back-to-school shopping season. Both Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs figure consumers spent about three-quarters of that money, far more than anyone expected and much more than after the 2001 tax cuts.
The spending gain led to the biggest jump in economic activity in 19 years in the July-September quarter. The tax cut "clearly provided the boost the economy needed to get back on track," Treasury Secretary John Snow said in a speech Thursday.
Noting that retail sales growth has slipped recently, some economists have worried the initial tax cut boost is fading. But others argue the refunds next year will keep the party going.
"The people who think it (third-quarter growth) was a one-shot sugar high have another think coming," says Greg Valliere, managing director of Schwab Washington Research Group.
end/
posted on November 14, 2003 05:43:43 PM new
So long as the national deficit grows exponentially as it is currently this means nothing except that future generations of children will be born into debt.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
posted on November 14, 2003 06:09:13 PM new
Buy Now …Pay Later
Who Pays?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-08-27-college-tuition-usat_x.htm
The University of Wisconsin has imposed double-digit tuition and fee increases — up 16% this academic year at Madison, to $5,138. But the increases won't make up for an unprecedented $250 million cut in state funding for the 26-campus system over the next two years.
posted on November 14, 2003 06:31:22 PM new
Austi.......When was the last time you ventured to the U.S. & made a purchase of any type or paid U.S. income tax .
If you response is not lately or never, what dam difference does any of it make to you?
You aren't contributing to the U.S. economy, you aren't a U.S. tax payer, you aren't a U.S. voter. You make no attempt to conceal you contempt for the U.S. & it's policies.
Are you this critical of your own government? If so, why? If No, why not?
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on November 14, 2003 06:31:47 PM new "The economy should actually help Bush," he says.
That is laugh out loud funny!
Real estate taxes are going through the roof. School tuition is so high that some students are dropping out. Health insurance is going up. Unemployment is still at 6%.
And with a deficit of over 500 billion, there is no end in sight.
George Bush is finished. Such pie in the sky tales about tax refunds to garner votes will not work again.
posted on November 14, 2003 06:39:28 PM new
I know, helen, it must be very frustrating for you to see things improving in our economy. And laugh all you want. Look who's making these projections....respectable qualified knowledgable professionals.
-----------
To the issue of college costs. It's the hard working US families that struggle to educate their children, when foreigners are charged much less of what our own citizens have to pay.
And I recently read an article that address the subject of rising college costs. Much blame was put on the fact that in order to attract students they're offering close to county club amenities. That's adding greatly to the cost of tution.
posted on November 14, 2003 07:39:30 PM new
If you really believe those statements about aid to foreign students and amenities causing unaffordable tuition, then I feel sorry for you.
posted on November 14, 2003 07:53:53 PM new
Does anyone remember Bush's infamous "rebates," made when he first became president? We were nicely in the black, and he boasted that his rebates would strengthen the country and help the citizens by putting money in their pockets. Of course, the fact that his rebates dumped us into the red was something that he & his cronies managed to downplay... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 14, 2003 08:33:10 PM new
Linda, how in the world could it be that foreign students pay less than American students? And even if they are, which I doubt you can verify, to what extent are universities making up the difference by charging US students more? What nonsense.
I'm sure a few bucks in people's pockets will go a long way towards buying votes. The US population is remarkably short sighted most of the time, especially where money is concerned. The tax cuts are just a tiny bit classier than if the President's people drove through the streets handing out money and saying "vote for us". If I've got a few extra bucks for an extra case of beer, I pretty much figure everything must be fine.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
[ edited by profe51 on Nov 14, 2003 08:34 PM ]
posted on November 15, 2003 12:12:00 AM new
Bear
When Bush’s actions don’t intrude on foreign liberties, I’ll stop contributing to his campaign in a negative way.
http://www.nationmaster.com
Murders with firearms (per capita)
1. South Africa 0.73 per 1000 people
2. Colombia 0.53 per 1000 people
3. Thailand 0.32 per 1000 people
4. Zimbabwe 0.05 per 1000 people
5. Mexico 0.03 per 1000 people
6. Costa Rica 0.03 per 1000 people
7. Belarus 0.03 per 1000 people
8. United States 0.03 per 1000 people
9. Uruguay 0.02 per 1000 people
10. Lithuania 0.02 per 1000 people
11. Slovakia 0.02 per 1000 people
12. Czech Republic 0.02 per 1000 people
13. Estonia 0.01 per 1000 people
14. Latvia 0.01 per 1000 people
15. Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of 0.01 per 1000 people
GDP (per capita)
1. Luxembourg $44,586.23 per person
2. United States $35,935.02 per person THIS STAT’ LOOKS GOOD, BUT WHO”S GETTING IT?
3. Bermuda $34,396.5 per person
4. San Marino $33,898.31 per person
5. Cayman Islands $32,531.08 per person
6. Switzerland $31,635.21 per person
7. Norway $31,601.37 per person
8. Belgium $28,964.63 per person
9. Denmark $28,963.37 per person
10. Canada $28,932.08 per person
11. Ireland $28,662.22 per person
12. Japan $27,958.26 per person
13. Austria $27,662.42 per person
14. Iceland $27,560.63 per person
15. Aruba $27,540.78 per person
USA
______________________________________Rank among Top 115 Nations
Income distribution (poorest 10%): 1.8% (income) [86th of 115]
Income distribution (poorest 20%): 5.2% (income) [80th of 115]
Income distribution (richest 10%): 30.5% (income) [54th of 115]
Income distribution (richest 20%): 46.4% (income) [55th of 115]
Population below poverty line: 13% (2001 est.)
Population under $11 a day: 13.6%
Share of household income (highest 10%): 31% (1997) (1997) [48th of 110]
Share of household income (lowest 10%): 2% [77th of 108]
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Economics-of-the-United-States
“ Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. ”
USA
Education spending: 4.7% [47th of 129]
Literacy (definition): age 15 and over can read and write
Literacy (female): 97% (1979 est.) [32nd of 178]
Literacy (male): 97% [47th of 178]
Literacy (total population): 97% [58th of 202]
School enrollment - primary (net): 94.94% (2000) [58th of 154]
School enrollment - secondary (net): 88.13% (2000) [22nd of 130]
School life expectancy (female): 15.7 years (1999/2000) [12th of 97]
School life expectancy (male): 14.8 years (1999/2000) [16th of 98]
School life expectancy (total): 15.2 years (1999/2000) [15th of 111]
Australia (Better Not Good enough, if you ask me)
Education spending: 5.2% [30th of 129]
Library books: 2,441,000 (1995) [38th of 81] per capita:124.88 per 1000
Literacy (definition): age 15 and over can read and write
Literacy (female): 100% (1980 est.) [2nd of 178]
Literacy (male): 100% [4th of 178]
Literacy (total population): 100% [2nd of 202]
School enrollment - primary (net): 95.66% (2000) [52nd of 154]
School enrollment - secondary (net): 89.67% (2000) [15th of 130]
School life expectancy (female): 16.8 years (1999/2000) [5th of 97]
School life expectancy (male): 16.4 years (1999/2000) [1st of 98]
School life expectancy (total): 16.6 years (1999/2000) [3th of 111]
[ edited by austbounty on Nov 15, 2003 12:16 AM ]
[ edited by austbounty on Nov 15, 2003 12:18 AM ]
posted on November 15, 2003 01:21:24 AM newLinda, how in the world could it be that foreign students pay less than American students? And even if they are, which I doubt you can verify, to what extent are universities making up the difference by charging US students more? What nonsense.
Why thank you profe, so nice being told what I'm saying is nonsense and that you doubt it's verifiable.
Why don't you do the 'footwork' yourself and google to verify that out-of-state college students have to pay much higher rates than do students who attend college in their own states [residents/non-residents], and that illegals don't have to pay the out-of-state charges. They're treated special in many states.
And maybe you think that the illegals foot their college bills all by themselves. Our tax dollars subsidize our colleges and the government gives poor students grants...like Pell grants...where they need not pay them back.
You might try doing a google search on 'tuition fees less for illegals' and see for yourself before you throw out your judgements of what I say as being nonsense.
--------------
And helen, I'll recommend the same thing to you. Do a search on 'news reports of college amenities' and you will read reports as current as yesterday about how these amenities are driving the costs of going to college up. Matter of fact, you might want to do a search on your precious NYT as they have about four articles on just that subject.
posted on November 15, 2003 03:50:04 AM new
Better Look at your facts again austbounty...
It was President CLINTON not President BUSH in office with those dates...
So you don't like President Clinton either? LOL
Must be nice to be a nothing from a nothing country...
Please tell us more of your nothing country... they obviously contribute absolutely nothing to the world, according to your posts, you have done absolutely nothing for the better of the world or your country... yep you're a real leader you are.
When I was in the Navy, met quite a few of your Australia Miltary MEN[/b, very good people, at least they were doing something for thier [b]country and would safely bet they would have nothing to do with the likes of you.
Other than use your azz for a broom as they sweeped you out the door....
posted on November 15, 2003 04:13:46 AM new
There is no reason why any child cannot attend college.
There are federal grants, state grants, loans, and numerous scholarships available to each and every deserving young person!
I have 2 teenagers in college, I am a single mom (no child support), and both go to private schools. One child works part-time on the campus to help offset some of the cost. One child has earned 2 scholarships.
If there's a will, there's a way!
Those that do complain that it's too expensive and hard to get funds, don't do the work necessary to obtain the financial help.
There is absolutely NO REASON any child cannot attend college! NONE!
Some responsibility falls on each child to do his best in high school.
Parents have to find resources to assist them financially.
If they don't, then they should not whine and moan about what the taxpayers won't give them!
posted on November 15, 2003 05:26:48 AM new
Ok Linda, I did some searching. As far as I can tell, 4 states currently allow for illegal immigrants to attend state universities at in-state resident tuition prices. These students must have attended at least 3 years of high school in-state and have graduated or achieved an equivalency diploma in-state. In addition, they must meet normal academic entrance requirements.
They are not charged much less of what our own citizens have to pay. They pay the same amount that all in-state students pay, which has always been lower than the cost of out of state tuition. This is nothing new. A whole bunch of years ago, I had to do a lot of cowboying in the summertime to earn enough to cover the difference between the scholarships I had won and the price of out of state tuition I was paying.
Your statement that immigrants are charged much less than citizens is nonsense.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on November 15, 2003 06:23:32 AM new
Linda,
Your nonsensical statement ignores the real basis for tuition increases throughout the U.S. The Bush economy has affected state budgets across the country leading to increased tuition and incidentally, reduction of staff. To blame a sudden increase like this on foreign students or "amenities" is so ludicrous that it doesn't deserve comment. As Profe pointed out, it's common knowledge that out of state students pay higher tuition and that foreign students pay the same as in state students. Why would a policy that has been in force for years cause such a sudden and significant increase in tuition?
You continue to assign thoughts to me that I do not have. I have never called the New York Times "my precious". I read newspapers all over the world and the New York Times is simply one of many that I consider relatively fair and reliable. Of course, editorials such as ones that you access are a different story.
You are becoming silly, spinning and misinterpreting facts to such a degree that you have become a major pain in the ass.
posted on November 15, 2003 08:49:16 AM new
and Pell grants are being eliminated as there are currently no funds available for such low priority programs.
posted on November 15, 2003 11:24:13 AM new
profe - The states that I saw were NY; CA; TX; Utah; IL; OR; WA; and some schools in GA. Others have current pending legislation to do the same.
least 3 years of high school in-stateIn addition, they must meet normal academic entrance requirements.
The requirements are different in each state. Some have no restrictions.
International students are require to pay up to 4 to 5 times what a state resident pays. Not so with these illegals.
If one of my children wanted to attend a college in say CA, the charge would be [for example] $12,000.00 a year. While a resident of CA would only have to pay $2,600.00. A big difference. But the illegals pay the $2,600.00 figure no matter where they're from.
The legal immigrants and our own citizens aren't affored these same 'price breaks'. And the cost of this is picked up by the taxpayers and the colleges. Some community colleges the illegals can get a two year education for free. Few, if any, US citizens can do the same.
In 1996, under the clinton administration, a bill was passed to stop this unfairness to those immigrants here legally and to US citizens. It required that if states gave illegals the reduced tuition/fees rates, then the same HAD to apply to legal US citizens. But it doesn't in some of those states.
So while [using my example above] I could not afford to send my son [say] to Stanford/UCLA/etc., because of the huge difference in yearly fees, in CA an illegal gets the reduced resident savings.
If you think no one pays for those who cannot afford to pay their own way, you are only fooling yourself. The states are making the 'universities/colleges' 'eat' both the cost for the illegals, and in those states where other non-residents are demanding their rights, under the 1996 bill, the colleges are losing that additional funding too. Thus, again, raising college fees for others and costs to the states for this revenue loss.
I'm not going to argue this point any longer. Those like yourself who feel illegals are entitled to all benefits we American have worked hard for will never find an area to agree on anyway.
IMO, no illegals should have any benefits or rights. They should be deported, period.
posted on November 15, 2003 12:14:18 PM new
I can't speak for other schools but where my wife works - Oakland University in Rochester Mi I can speak in detail.
The state actually gave the school more money than they asked for and yet tuition was raised.
They take a very aggressive stand on keeping the wages of the teaching and support staff down. Some groups go without a contract for years until it is settled by arbitration.
But the salaries and bonuses for the top handfull of people are going up faster than their income.
The University constantly holds business meeting in private in violation of the public meetings act that is state law and they waste huge sums of money on things like golf courses for alumni and set the accounting for such things seperate so they don't have to show how much money they are losing. Even though their own lawyers tell them it won't fly.
In other words they are as corrupt and unaccountable as most large companies are today.
But they are lowest in cost to county residents then to state residents and foreign students pay anywhere from three to five times what a local kid does to attend.
posted on November 15, 2003 01:20:54 PM new
Revised Financial Aid Formula Will Cut Pell Grants to Students
07/28/03 • Vol. 52, No. 14
A change in the federal financial aid formula instituted by the U.S. Department of Education could mean tens of thousands of students will end up qualifying for a smaller Pell Grant than last year—or in some cases, none at all.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report recently analyzing the impact of the department’s change in the existing formula for allocating financial aid. A new qualification formula for the grant could mean awards would be cut by up to $270 million. If the changes are approved, some 84,000 college students nationwide will no longer qualify for a Pell Grant, with an estimated 100,000 receiving less money than in previous years.
posted on November 15, 2003 02:25:33 PM new
Dave, here is a press release that addresses that issue. It's been spread [the mis-information] by those who wish to make President Bush look bad.
--------
News from the
Committee on Education and the Workforce
John Boehner, Chairman
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2003
Don't Fall for the Partisan Pell Grant Fraud
Nearly One Million More Students Are Receiving Pell Grants Under Bush, With Numbers Still Climbing;
Every Student Eligible for Pell Grants Under Current Law Will Receive Pell Grants Next Year.
Dear Colleague:
For weeks, Democrat Party leaders have been claiming -- falsely -- that the Bush administration has put forth a proposal that would somehow "cut" Pell Grants in higher education and result in 84,000 students losing their Pell Grant awards. They've even introduced legislation to block the Bush administration from implementing these alleged "cuts." There's just one little problem: there are no such "cuts."
The number of students receiving Pell Grants has increased by nearly one million since President Bush took office, and will increase again next year under the administration's proposals. Every student who is eligible for a Pell Grant under the terms of the Higher Education Act will receive a Pell Grant for the 2004-05 award year.
As the attached letter from U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige makes clear, Democrats' claims about 84,000 students facing the "loss" of Pell Grant eligibility are without merit. "It is incorrect to allege that any current student will lose eligibility next year due to the update," Secretary Paige says flatly, noting that the Department expects more students to receive grants next year as compared to this year.
Under current law -- passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress in 1992 -- the Department of Education is required to periodically update the IRS tax tables that are part of the process it uses to calculate Pell Grant eligibility, to ensure that Pell Grants are going to students who actually qualify for them. The Department is following that law. And in doing so, the number of students benefiting from Pell Grants next year is expected to increase -- not to drop, as falsely contended by some Democrat Party leaders. Every student eligible for Pell Grants under current law will receive Pell Grants next year.
Don't fall victim to this partisan Pell Grant fraud. For further information, please contact Kathleen Smith or Alison Ream of the House Education & the Workforce Committee majority staff at x5-6558.
Sincerely,
John Boehner
Chairman
Education & the Workforce Committee
-------------------
October 1, 2003
Honorable John Boehner
House of Representatives
Washington , DC 20515
Dear Chairman Boehner:
I am writing to you today concerning the notice published by the Department of Education in the Federal Register on May 30, 2003 , containing the annual updates for the 2004-2005 award year to tables used in the federal need analysis for student financial aid.
I understand that there have been a number of inaccurate comments made about the Department of Education causing the "loss" of eligibility for Pell grants for 84,000 "students" because of the annual updates to the tables mentioned in the May 30 notice. I am writing to explain that these claims are without merit.
In the spring, the Department's Budget Service ran a simulation model that estimated the number of Pell grant recipients and the value of their awards for the 2004-05 award year using the updated tables. The simulation was repeated for the 2004-05 award year, but using the current-year (2003-04) tables. Based on this hypothetical analysis, it is incorrect to allege that any current student will lose eligibility next year due to the update. In fact, at the time of the simulation no student had yet received a Pell grant in the 2003-04 award year.
Every student who is eligible for a Pell Grant under the terms of the Higher Education Act will receive a Pell Grant for the 2004-05 award year.
As you know, President Bush and I have made funding Pell Grants one of the Administration's highest priorities. We have proposed higher increases in funding for Pell Grants than were enacted during the eight years of the previous administration.
This year, the President proposed $12.7 billion for Pell Grants, which would enable nearly 5 million students almost one-third of all the students enrolled in higher education to receive a Pell Grant. That is almost one million more students receiving Pell Grants than before the President took office and we expect more students to receive grants next year as compared to this year regardless of the update to the tax allowance table.
We intend to continue this strong support for the Pell Grant program in order to assist students from low-income families in their dream of obtaining a postsecondary education.
If I can provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
posted on November 15, 2003 03:09:44 PM new
liveinjeans “There is absolutely NO REASON any child cannot attend college! NONE!“
If there is no political or economic reason then do you think that perhaps the reason for America’s education figures being poorer than Australia’s is an intellectual reason or a motivational one.
America has the 2’nd highest GDP/per capita of all nations in the world and yet ranks 15th among
School life expectancy.
1. Norway 16.9 (1999/2000)
2. Finland 16.7 (1999/2000)
3. Australia 16.6 (1999/2000)
4. United Kingdom 16.4 (1999/2000)
5. New Zealand 16.2 (1997)
6. Sweden 16 (1999/2000)
7. Netherlands 15.9 (1999/2000)
8. Belgium 15.8 (1999/2000)
9. Iceland 15.8 (1999/2000)
10. Denmark 15.6 (1999/2000)
11. France 15.4 (1999/2000)
12. Germany 15.3 (1998/1999)
13. Spain 15.3 (1999/2000)
14. Portugal 15.2 (1999/2000)
15. United States 15.2 (1999/2000)
USA 6Literacy (definition): age 15 and over can read and write
Literacy (female): 97% (1979 est.) [32nd of 178]
Literacy (male): 97% [47th of 178]
Literacy (total population): 97% [58th of 202]
What ever cause you wish to attribute these figures too, the future for America’s children is not as promising as it could be.
FOR 12Pole:
In Australia, we have a term ‘bush mechanic’: that’s a person able to repair a motor vehicle in the outback while not having access to appropriate materials or equipment, eg. Replacing a broken fan belt with your wife’s pantyhose so you can get to the next town, or placing your flat battery next to a small fire to ‘juice it up’ a little.
12, You can keep blaming Clinton, but you will be needing some ‘Bush Teachers’.
No Child Left Behind.http://www.naeyc.org/childrens_champions/Budget.pdf
__ According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, forty percent
(40%) of the decline in the budget is directly linked to the 2001 tax cut
package.
__ According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the Administration’s tax
proposals (the growth package, making the 2001 cuts permanent, and other
proposals) would cost $1.5 trillion through 2013.
__ By spending another $1.5 trillion dollars on tax cuts, which primarily benefit
wealthier taxpayers, the federal government puts in peril the nation’s ability to
invest in programs such as Head Start, child care assistance, No Child Left
Behind programs, and other human services that help low income working
families and their children be independent and succeed in school and in life.
Stories from the Field November 2003 http://www.nea.org/esea/storiesfromthefield.html
Middle-school students in Gurnie, Ill., must now pay $145 to play a team sport and $60 to join the school band or choir. ... In Collier County, Florida, school officials are exploring the option of selling advertising space on school buses to generate revenue ... An elementary school principal in Millis, Mass., doubles as a school nurse in the morning ... and students at Central High School in St. Paul, Minn., are now reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the image of a flag on classroom televisions because their school cannot afford to purchase flags and flag holders.
posted on November 15, 2003 05:36:00 PM new
Aust,
I will just keep this simple for you.
I don't need quoted figures to use common sense.
I am not blaming Clinton nor any president for that matter.
The key work is MOTIVATION.
Our country is a melting pot of diverse groups of people.
It only stands to reason that due to that very fact, we would have lower test scores due to various factors such as; culture, religion, language barriers, to name a few.
Education is free in this country, public school system.
Extra activities are not free, and that is understandable. It's not considered academic.
There was a time when simple classrooms, 1 room schools, created some of the most gifted and creative people that ever lived.
Do you honestly think that pouring more money into the educational system will make a difference?
No.
Why? Wanting an education comes from within a person.
If a young person wants a car, they will find a way to obtain one.
If they want to date a certain person, they will do what is necessary.
Those that aren't motivated, will not pursue any of the above.
I am a former educator btw.
I have seen all types of students from various backgrounds.
Some of the poorest of them all, rose to the occasion, wanted the best, and took advantage of the opportunities presented to them. Those very kids succeeded, going to college and getting excellent jobs.
Those that played, paid.
Bottom line, all the figures in the world do not determine what is in a kid's heart.
The US probably wastes more money on education (public) than all the others.
We may have the lowest tests scores.
It's a way for finding a middle ground to evaluate potential.
Einstein was not a good math student.
What does that prove.
Test scores are subjective, not objective.
Obviously, putting money into these government programs to help Johnny read or write, means nothing.
Give the kid a pencil, paper, and a decent teacher who loves what he/she does...then see what happens.
It is based entirely on what Johnny WANTS to learn.
No amount of money can buy that.
posted on November 15, 2003 06:04:27 PM new
On a standard IQ test KOKO the Gorilla scores higher than many American children and within 10 points of President Bush.
A Comparison.
The six lastest republic presidents over the last 50 years have a average IQ of 115,5. President Nixon had the highest IQ (155) of them all.
President G. W. Bush has the lowest of all the republics with an IQ of 91.
The six democratic Presidents had an average IQ of 156, President Clinton has the highest IQ: 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson had the lowest IQ of all the democrats with an IQ of 126.
The gorilla Koko was tested with a human IQ test. The result was amazing. Koko had an IQ between 70 and 95. If a normal person got this result,
the person would be slow and not that bright!
http://www.bushorchimp.com/
[ edited by davebraun on Nov 15, 2003 06:10 PM ]
posted on November 15, 2003 06:16:10 PM new
Education takes money. It takes money to pay teachers, buy supplies and books, build and maintain schools. We aren't living in the little house on the prarie today.
BTW...I do not post with the intent of having you respect my thoughts, liveinjeans. I don't respect your thoughts and I don't expect you to respect mine.
