Bush couldn't run a hot dog stand

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by spillmind, Feb 2, 2004.

  1. spillmind
    Offline

    spillmind Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    780
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Palo Alto, Ca.
    Ratings:
    +13
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040202/ts_nm/budget_dc_3

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facing a record $521 billion deficit, President Bush proposed a $2.4 trillion election-year budget on Monday that will cut dozens of domestic programs and set deficit-reduction goals that even fellow Republicans are skeptical he can meet.


    Bush has overseen a dramatic worsening of the budget picture after inheriting a record surplus. He hopes to improve his fiscal image before the November election by promising to reduce the deficit by a third next year and in half by 2007.


    The White House still expects the shortfall to total $1.35 trillion through 2009, and for government debt to rise from $8.1 trillion to $10.5 trillion.


    "The government must exercise fiscal responsibility by limiting spending growth, focusing on the results of government programs, and cutting wasteful spending," Bush said.


    But fiscal conservatives in both parties doubt Bush can deliver on his deficit reduction promises.


    His fiscal 2005 budget left out the tens of billions sure to be needed next year to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and omitted a fix for provisions in the tax code that will put a big burden on many middle-class households.


    Homeland security and the military will be the budget's biggest winners with rises of nearly 10 percent and 7 percent respectively.


    Defense contractors including Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE:LMT - ), Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - ), Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE:NOC - ), Raytheon Co. (NYSE:RTN - ) and General Dynamics Corp. (NYSE:GD - ) stand to benefit as Bush's $401.7 billion military budget increases spending on missile defense and on modernizing the Army.


    Hardest hit were the departments of Agriculture and Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency the Small Business Administration, and the Corps of Engineers, with cuts ranging from 1 percent for the Commerce Department to as much as 49 percent for the General Services Administration.


    To placate conservatives threatening a revolt, growth of discretionary spending -- outside of homeland security and defense -- would be capped at 0.5 percent. Because that is well below the inflation rate, it amounts to a cut in domestic programs and the lowest growth since 1993.


    In a tacit acknowledgment that deficits are here to stay, Bush set the goal of bringing this year's record $521 billion shortfall down to $364 billion in fiscal 2005, to $241 billion in 2007 and then to $237 billion in 2009. There is no talk of surpluses in the foreseeable future.


    ELECTION-YEAR FIGHT


    Already members of both parties are bracing for a bitter fight, and many question whether any budget deal can be reached.


    Democrats scoffed at Bush's plan to stem the red ink while asking Congress to make permanent his tax cuts. "It's the most anti-family, anti-worker, anti-health care, anti-education budget in modern times, and it doesn't deserve to pass," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Massachusetts Democrat.


    Fiscal conservatives accused the White House of relying on gimmicks, like stretching the definition of homeland security to sidestep its own spending limits.


    Keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan could bloat the deficit by at least $40 billion in 2005 alone.


    Even a spending freeze in areas targeted by Bush would cut the deficit by just $3 billion, according to some Republicans.


    Conservatives want much deeper cuts after the White House acknowledged its prescription drug plan would cost one-third more than initially advertised. Spending under Bush has grown at the fastest pace since the Johnson administration of the mid-1960s, they complain.

    "He's got to get really serious about budget control and really defend and enforce this budget if he's going to hold conservatives with him in the November elections," said Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a politically powerful conservative group.

    While homeland security and military spending will rise, more than 65 government programs will be cut.

    Some tax breaks favored by Republicans will also be reined in, including some for energy production and business investment.

    Bush will delay budget-busting reform of the alternative minimum tax, which requires a growing number of middle-income taxpayers to calculate their taxes in two ways and pay the higher bill.

    Instead, Bush will propose a one-year extension of the AMT provisions. As with Iraq, he has decided to push back the day of reckoning until after the election.
    (AS USUAL)

    what happened to those 2.5mil jobs lost? i thought thos TAX CUTS were supposed to BOOST the job market? :rolleyes: why is it that i can see the crap that this admin pushes on us coming all the down the pipe, yet so many people just fall in line right in step? amazing!
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    And yet he currently helps run the United States, and will be doing so for the next 4 1/2 years.

    I believe it's safe to say your job is secure, Spilly!
     
  3. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    You know, the political structure in this country is amazing. Every few years, the political party in office changes and the other one gets the short end of the stick so to speak. I am so happy it's now going to be 8 years of Republicans in the White House because, after 8 years of the democrats, I am finally getting what I want out of this govenrment.

    After 2004, it's anyone's guess...perhaps the sycophants in the country will be celebrating a democratic win.

    All I know is that I am going to enjoy the benefits of Bush for the rest of this and one more term in an exponential way from the horror I had to live with under Clinton.

    Yee Ha!
     
  4. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    actually, to get right down to brass tax, Bush and the republican party is eventually going to accomplish everything it has set out to do as far as gutting almost every domestic program that is seen as a 'entitlement'. With the budget being proposed and the spending being capped at 0.5%, there won't be any choice.

    I think its about time that Bush just dropped the 'compassionate conservative' halloween costume that he used in 2000 to run his campaign.

    The end result is going to be inevitable in the next 10 years though as we see the middle class dissappear and the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
     
  5. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Nice pun.


    Then perhaps the "poor" will work smarter to ensure their continued survival/advancement.
     
  6. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    and this goes back to one of my other points is that without the government ensuring any kind of fairness while it bows down to corporate interests it will never matter how 'smart' the poor work as the people or business with the money will have all the power.
     
  7. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Bush will be reelected.

    acludem
     
  8. spillmind
    Offline

    spillmind Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    780
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Palo Alto, Ca.
    Ratings:
    +13
    thanks for responding in a civilized manner, jim. the last post was a bit harsh, even for you... i was trying to respectfully disagree...

    ...and i would say it's hard to tell is bush will get re-elected at this point.

    my job may be secure, but i'm not sure if that overtime i get for working 50+ hours a week will around for much longer! thanks again bush!! :mad:

    wow, you must be the guy who told the other guy who lost his job to 'work harder next time' :eek:

    god forbid you'll ever need a favor from someone!

    i would LOVE to know what on EARTH you are talking about 'benefits'... please enlighten us! :laugh:
     
  9. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    ...Shoot the wounded.
     
  10. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Well, as I don't believe in God, I really couldn't care less if he forbids or not. As for telling people that lose their jobs to work harder, sorry but that's not what I said. Perhaps you are a product of our deteriorating public schools???

    What I said was that those people who are deemed "poor" in the referenced scenario would be forced to work "smarter" if they had to face the consequences of their actions. i.e., BRISK, SPIRITED
    4 a : mentally alert : BRIGHT b : KNOWLEDGEABLE c : SHREWD <a smart investment>
    5 a : WITTY, CLEVER b : PERT, SAUCY <don't get smart with me>
    6 a : NEAT, TRIM b : stylish or elegant in dress or appearance c (1) : SOPHISTICATED (2) : characteristic of or patronized by fashionable society
    7 a : being a guided missile <a laser-guided smart bomb> b : operating by automation <a smart machine tool> c : INTELLIGENT 3

    Since when does the definition of smarter have anything to do with dedication or hard work?

    Perhaps they would then not squander their chance to obtain an education (such as you so clearly demonstrate), would use the ample assistance in this nation to better themselves, make better choices, save money instead of spead it willly nilly and would take the time to educate themselves politically and vote for those who would alter the system more to their liking.

    I did not say, nor did I impoly, that those who are poor don't work hard. I'm sure they do. The problem is that they have abdicated control to others and have made poor choices which have caused them to fail within the system.

    And as for me needing favors, well, I don't believe it's the government's job to do favors nor is it the government's job to take from the rich and give to the poor. The government is there to ensure that people are treated equally - that does not mean that people will end up equal nor does it mean that the government is responsible for delivering a standard of living to its citizens. The citizens themselves must obtain that standard on their own.
     

Share This Page