PDA

View Full Version : the Bush Budget


irishgrl
02-08-2005, 10:44 AM
Bush Budget (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050208/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_budget)
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites ) says he has produced a "lean" $2.57 trillion spending plan that would promote his key goals of fighting terrorism and protecting the homeland while seeking to weed out ineffective government programs. But critics are complaining about the president's priorities and charging that the budget is more notable for what has been left out.

Setting the stage for months of partisan squabbles in Congress, Republican lawmakers generally praised Bush's budget for 2006 while Democrats heaped scorn on the proposal.

Sen. John Kerry, Bush's defeated Democratic presidential opponent, said Bush had reached "new lows of fiscal irresponsibility" by proposing a spending plan that "takes cops off the street, hurts veterans and punishes school children while saddling future generations with record budget deficits and mountains of debt."

Bush defended the spending blueprint, saying, "It's a budget that focuses on results."

He told reporters that "the taxpayers of America don't want us spending our money into something that's not achieving results." (CAN YOU SAY IRAQ BOYS AND GIRLS?)

The president was traveling to Detroit on Tuesday to promote his agenda for economic prosperity, which includes budgetary restraint, tax cuts, deregulation and free trade.

On Capitol Hill, Treasury Secretary John Snow and Joshua Bolten, Bush's budget director, were testifying Tuesday at separate congressional hearings that begin a long legislative process that will stretch into the fall as Congress crafts its own budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

Bush sent his massive multivolume set of spending documents, trimmed in bright blue, to Congress on Monday, saying the new budget focused on his priorities while targeting 150 government programs for either outright elimination or drastic reductions, including Amtrak passenger train subsidies and grants to communities for hiring police officers.

In the most tightfisted budget of his presidency, Bush proposed giving nine of 15 Cabinet-level agencies less money in 2006 than they are getting this year. And overall non-security domestic spending ? excluding such automatic benefit programs like Social Security (news - web sites) and Medicare ? would be reduced by 0.7 percent next year.

Bush said this was the first outright cut in this wide swath of government programs proposed by any president since Ronald Reagan (news - web sites).

"I understand that sometimes it's hard to eliminate a program that sounds good," Bush said Monday at the White House. "I'm saying to members of Congress, show us the results as to whether or not this program is working."

Republicans, while generally endorsing Bush's approach, noted that Congress will have its own opinions about what spending priorities to set. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., called the administration's plan "a good starting point for the Congress to begin its work."

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., conceded that "obviously this is a budget that is going to create some significant angst among my colleagues." But he praised the administration for producing a budget of "fiscal responsibility" that would call Republicans "back to our roots."

Democrats, however, were less kind, accusing Bush of budgetary sleight of hand to keep some huge costs out of the budget.

While the administration has said that it will request $81 billion in new spending for operations in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites ) within a few days and will have to come back to Congress for more money in 2006, new money for the two military operations in the two countries was omitted for 2006 and beyond.

Likewise, the administration's top domestic priority, overhauling Social Security by creating private investment accounts, was kept out of the budget even though the administration has already estimated that transition costs for the first decade will total $754 billion.

In both cases, the administration said not enough was known about future needs in Iraq or the ultimate shape of Bush's Social Security proposal to come up with realistic budget estimates.

Bush's proposed 4.8 percent increase for the Pentagon (news - web sites ) would bring its budget next year to $419.3 billion, excluding Iraq war costs. That was $3.4 billion less than he projected for 2006 just a year ago, with weapons procurement among the leading areas feeling the crunch.

Bush wants to make his first term tax cuts permanent at a 10-year cost of $1.1 trillion. However, most of that expense will not show up until after 2010, when the bulk of tax cuts are set to expire, and the Bush budget did not provide any deficit estimates past 2010.

Bush's spending plan showed deficits totaling $1.8 trillion from the current year through 2010, including a record $427 billion imbalance this year. After this year, Bush's budget projects that the deficits will decline to $233 billion in 2009, the year the president pledged during the campaign to cut the deficit in half, a goal he would achieve at that level in terms of the deficit's share of the total economy.

Democrats said if Bush had shown the real costs of the Iraq operation in future years, the transition costs for Social Security and the price of making his tax cuts permanent then deficits over the next decade would total more than $4 trillion.

strandinthewind
02-08-2005, 10:52 AM
. . . He told reporters that "the taxpayers of America don't want us spending our money into something that's not achieving results." (CAN YOU SAY IRAQ BOYS AND GIRLS?)

That is a little unfair. I am not thrilled about Iraq and I think we should not be there. But, progress is being made. The elections there went pretty well. I know they were not perfect - but no one expected them to be. I look at Iraq like theis - we are there (to my chagrain) and cannot just pack up and leave. So, we have to do what it will take to get out of there as quickly as possible. I think we are on our way.

Note: I am not saying Iraq is an easy situation or that we are succeeding as quickly as I would like or that we will ever succeed as much as I would like. Moreover, the way we have handled it thus far has been for the most part horrendous. I am just saying that hopefull, the relative success of the recent elections is the light at the end of the tunnel.

irishgrl
02-08-2005, 10:57 AM
That is a little unfair. I am not thrilled about Iraq and I think we should not be there. But, progress is being made. The elections there went pretty well. I know they were not perfect - but no one expected them to be. I look at Iraq like theis - we are there (to my chagrain) and cannot just pack up and leave. So, we have to do what it will take to get out of there as quickly as possible. I think we are on our way.

Note: I am not saying Iraq is an easy situation or that we are succeeding as quickly as I would like or that we will ever succeed as much as I would like. Moreover, the way we have handled it thus far has been for the most part horrendous. I am just saying that hopefull, the relative success of the recent elections is the light at the end of the tunnel.

what do ya wanna bet that the SECOND we leave, civil war erupts again and the Shiites plunge that poor country back into anarchy? Where's your hearts and flowers then? me and my crystal ball will be standing by.

strandinthewind
02-08-2005, 11:03 AM
what do ya wanna bet that the SECOND we leave, civil war erupts again and the Shiites plunge that poor country back into anarchy? Where's your hearts and flowers then? me and my crystal ball will be standing by.

Well, that very well may happen - though you seem to be salivating at the thought of it :eek:

I am just saying that we need to be spending money so we can get out of there as quickly as possible while at the same time leaving them with the ability to have a govt. in place, etc. I think we owe them that much seeing as how we invaded and destroyed their country on a false pretense. What they do when we leave is their own business. I hope they do not do as you say though. Only time will tell.

irishgrl
02-08-2005, 11:05 AM
though you seem to be salivating at the thought of it

not salivating, prognosticating. that is all. You know what? I hope Im wrong!

dissention
02-08-2005, 11:08 AM
not salivating, prognosticating. that is all. You know what? I hope Im wrong!

You won't be wrong, that's the sad thing. Democracy in Iraq is like me in a church; it'll never happen.

strandinthewind
02-08-2005, 11:18 AM
You won't be wrong, that's the sad thing. Democracy in Iraq is like me in a church; it'll never happen.

I do not think it will happen. But, my hope is the Iraqi's will see that there is a way better than SH. I am not saying the war was worth that hope. I am just saying I hope it happens and the past elections indicate that is a possibility though not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination. Then again, I am an optimist :wavey:

irishgrl
02-08-2005, 11:58 AM
I do not think it will happen. But, my hope is the Iraqi's will see that there is a way better than SH. I am not saying the war was worth that hope. I am just saying I hope it happens and the past elections indicate that is a possibility though not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination. Then again, I am an optimist :wavey:

The American people were led down the garden path, and the price tag will be paid for by our GRANDKIDS...that's the thing that GRIPES me. This accomplishes nothing changes nothing, and cost a mint. Money that could have been better spent on OUR poor, OUR elderly, OUR needy.

Im not saying optimism is wrong, Im saying Bush's War is wrong.

strandinthewind
02-08-2005, 12:01 PM
The American people were led down the garden path, and the price tag will be paid for by our GRANDKIDS...that's the thing that GRIPES me. This accomplishes nothing changes nothing, and cost a mint. Money that could have been better spent on OUR poor, OUR elderly, OUR needy.

Im not saying optimism is wrong, Im saying Bush's War is wrong.

Well, I am not disagreeing with you. I am just saying your comment in the article that you posted "He told reporters that "the taxpayers of America don't want us spending our money into something that's not achieving results." (CAN YOU SAY IRAQ BOYS AND GIRLS?)" was somewhat unfair in that we must spend money in Iraq in order to leave and that the Jan. election were somewhat successful, which is an achieved result.

irishgrl
02-08-2005, 12:07 PM
Well, I am not disagreeing with you. I am just saying your comment in the article that you posted "He told reporters that "the taxpayers of America don't want us spending our money into something that's not achieving results." (CAN YOU SAY IRAQ BOYS AND GIRLS?)" was somewhat unfair in that we must spend money in Iraq in order to leave and that the Jan. election were somewhat successful, which is an achieved result.

Well THIS taxpayer doesnt want Bush to spend $$$$$$$$$ on something that isnt achieving results (by results I mean LASTING results) If Iraq is only going to go back to what it WAS, then all the money we spent on the election, even if with the best of intentions, was for NOTHING. I belong to that school of thought which refuses to throw good money after bad. This election that you are touting, is a momentary blip on the screen. It will evaporate into nothingness quicker than you can say supercalifragilisticexpialidosious, three times in a row! (spelling is approximate!)

and finally: the line of reasoning that thinks we must spend money in order to LEAVE begs the question, what would it have cost to never enter in the first place?

strandinthewind
02-08-2005, 12:34 PM
. . . and finally: the line of reasoning that thinks we must spend money in order to LEAVE begs the question, what would it have cost to never enter in the first place?

Again, I am not disagreeing that we should not be there.

I am saying the reality is we are there and we must spend money to leave. Thus, I thought your comment was unfair/misleading/etc.

ontheEdgeof17
02-08-2005, 12:44 PM
I'm just pissed that he is going to cut millions....yes millions....from WV's Educational programs....including funding for vocational schools, drug free programs, and special education. We are going to suffer here....and still we are a red state. :distress:

dissention
02-08-2005, 12:45 PM
I'm just pissed that he is going to cut millions....yes millions....from WV's Educational programs....including funding for vocational schools, drug free programs, and special education. We are going to suffer here....and still we are a red state. :distress:

Just think, Curtis, of how that $40 million he spent on his inauguration could have been used for educational purposes.

ontheEdgeof17
02-08-2005, 12:48 PM
Just think, Curtis, of how that $40 million he spent on his inauguration could have been used for educational purposes.


If it wasn't for out gaming centers, out educational funding would be hella bad. Sad, but true.

strandinthewind
02-08-2005, 12:57 PM
Just think, Curtis, of how that $40 million he spent on his inauguration could have been used for educational purposes.

FOUL

The Fed. Govt. did not spend that. The inaug. was paid for mostly with private donations. Nice try though :rolleyes:

to wit:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/bush.inauguration/

dissention
02-08-2005, 12:59 PM
FOUL

The Fed. Govt. did not spend that. The inaug. was paid for mostly with private donations. Nice try though :rolleyes:

That wasn't the point I was making. :shrug:

Point was that it is disgusting for $40 million to be spent on a ****ing party when education budgets are being slashed all over the country. No child left behind my ass. It doesn't matter if it's George Soros spending it or Poppy Bush spending it; it's sick.

strandinthewind
02-08-2005, 01:02 PM
That wasn't the point I was making. :shrug:

Point was that it is disgusting for $40 million to be spent on a ****ing party when education budgets are being slashed all over the country. No child left behind my ass. It doesn't matter if it's George Soros spending it or Poppy Bush spending it; it's sick.


Ah - the economy of scale argument. So, all people should give up their cars and take public transportation instead whilst giving the money from the sales of the cars to the poor lest they be judged in bad taste :rolleyes:

Come on, inaug.'s have been going on for decades and none of them are cheap. As I have stated before, I think they are silly. But, who am I to tell private individuals how to spend their money lest I be told the same.

dissention
02-08-2005, 01:22 PM
Ah - the economy of scale argument. So, all people should give up their cars and take public transportation instead whilst giving the money from the sales of the cars to the poor lest they be judged in bad taste :rolleyes:

Come on, inaug.'s have been going on for decades and none of them are cheap. As I have stated before, I think they are silly. But, who am I to tell private individuals how to spend their money lest I be told the same.

The entire point just goes in one ear and out the other. :xoxo:

ontheEdgeof17
02-08-2005, 01:23 PM
The entire point just goes in one ear and out the other. :xoxo:


Shhh...I think he's a secret funder of the Bush Inag. :p

strandinthewind
02-08-2005, 01:28 PM
The entire point just goes in one ear and out the other. :xoxo:

I get it - but I think it is line drawing and therefore subjective and it is in many ways hypocritical because few if any that I know of live their lives by such rules on a comparative scale. Who here has not made an unnecessary and comparatively extravagant purchase when there are starving people in the world. I mean who has not thought, I would like an ice cream sunday today and then bought it. I think all would agree a sunday is not a necessity and if everyone put their money for such things into a general fund - there would be no world hunger. Sadly, there would also be no sundays. Thus, I begrudge no one for doing such - not even W and his cronies.

P.S. - if sundays are too trivial - then what about a more expensive car or house. No one needs more than a one room house - maybe two rooms with a kid or two. No one needs the more expensive furnishings. Yet, we all do it.

strandinthewind
02-08-2005, 01:29 PM
Shhh...I think he's a secret funder of the Bush Inag. :p

On no I am not - I was asked and declined with rude comment :laugh: Interestingly, I was also solicited for Kerry's day - prior to the election that is :eek:

skcin
02-08-2005, 02:46 PM
I get it - but I think it is line drawing and therefore subjective and it is in many ways hypocritical because few if any that I know of live their lives by such rules on a comparative scale. Who here has not made an unnecessary and comparatively extravagant purchase when there are starving people in the world. I mean who has not thought, I would like an ice cream sunday today and then bought it. I think all would agree a sunday is not a necessity and if everyone put their money for such things into a general fund - there would be no world hunger. Sadly, there would also be no sundays. Thus, I begrudge no one for doing such - not even W and his cronies.

P.S. - if sundays are too trivial - then what about a more expensive car or house. No one needs more than a one room house - maybe two rooms with a kid or two. No one needs the more expensive furnishings. Yet, we all do it.


For God's sake, man - it's SUNDAE! SUNDAE!



:sorry:

And about the house - sorry, but I am not going to sleep, piss & eat in the same room. I really don't think that living in a nice house is very extravagant. Of course, I live in a 3BR 1&1/2 bath house. Should I move to the shed in my backyard? ;)

strandinthewind
02-08-2005, 02:49 PM
For God's sake, man - it's SUNDAE! SUNDAE!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :sorry: :cool:

dissention
02-08-2005, 03:05 PM
P.S. - if sundays are too trivial - then what about a more expensive car or house. No one needs more than a one room house - maybe two rooms with a kid or two. No one needs the more expensive furnishings. Yet, we all do it.

Most people don't buy that stuff, anyway. They're called loans and credit cards. :lol:

strandinthewind
02-08-2005, 03:07 PM
Most people don't buy that stuff, anyway. They're called loans and credit cards. :lol:

lord child - you are a preachin' to the choir :laugh: