Here we go again...

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Bullypulpit, Feb 11, 2005.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <center><h1><font color=red>Budget...? What budget...?</font></h1></center>

    Dubbyuh's <a href=http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=327039>budget</a>, such as it is, calls for some $350 billion in <a href=http://www.cbpp.org/2-7-05bud3.htm>cuts</a> to discretionary and mandatory programs for 2006. In addition, the budget includes a number of tax changes that would reduce revenue by $1.3 trillion dollars over the next ten years. (<i><b>And he wants to spend $2 trillion to "save" Social Security?!?!</b></i>)

    Since Dubbyuh rolled into DC, the ability of the government to raise revenue has dropped precipitously. At less than 17% of GDP, federal revenue is lower than it has been in the last 40 years. And, contrary to Dubbyuh's contentions, government spending is not "out of control". The most recent increase in spending has not beenon social safety net programs, but rather in higher defense and national security spending.

    In the four years since Dubbyuh first graced the corridors of the White House, America has gone from a surplus of some $236 billion to a deficit of nearly $427 billion. And despite Dubbyuh's, and his handler's, claims otherwise, the dficit has only deepened. The 2006 budget doesn't include the costs, even estimated, of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also conveniently excluded are the costs of Dubbyuh's "plan" to save Social Security and fixes to the Alternative Minimum Tax. When you add these costs, as well as the interest on them, the <a href=http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/analyses/06_pres_bud_short.pdf>deficits</a> over the next ten years soars to nearly $5 <b>trillion</b>

    And don't expect any changes in Dubbyuh's tax policy...More of the same crap different day. He's pushing to make the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, costing more than $1 trillion. He's also proposing other tax changes that will cost $117 billion over the next ten years. Also buried in the budget is the elimination of the "PEP" and "PEASE" provisions of the tax code which limit the size of personal exemptions and itemized deductions the wealthiest taxpayers can take. This will some $115 billion through the end of the decade, with <a href=http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05tax.htm>97% of the benefit</a> going to households earning more than $200,000 per year. According to Tax Policy Center estimates, extending teh provisions of 2001/2004 tax changes would yield about $150,000 in tax cuts for those making over $1 million per year while yielding a significantly smaller proportion in tax relief to middle class taxpayers. The Adminstration seems bent on continuing its policies which extends preferential treatment to income generated by capital rather than by work. These tax policies are punitive towards work while they allow the very wealthy to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

    The process is skewed even further and the deficit deepened by PayGo rules which mandate expansions in government services to be paid for by cuts elswhere in the budget, however the proposed tax cuts and other changes to the tax code which will further reduce federal revenues are exempt from these rules.

    We are already reaping the bitter harvest of Dubbyuh's previous domestic policy decisions. States all over the country are cutting funding to Medicaide programs, education and infrasturcture. Under this budget, these cuts will only deepen, leading to cuts in health and long-term care benefits for over 50 million people. The republican governnor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee said, "<i>People need to remember that to balance the budget off the backs of the poorest people inthe country is simply unacceptable. You don't pull feeding tubes from people. You don't pull the wheelchair out from under the child with muscular dystrophy.</i>" So much for protecting the weakest among us. The truly sad part of this is that the proposed cuts won't even begin to balance the budget.

    Dubbyuh has made much of his "record" on defense and the "war" on terror. But guess what...? The Department of Homeland security only gets a 1% increase in its fiscal '06 budget, which doesn't even keep up with inflation. And as the need for troops is increasing due to casualties and attrition, the budget contains no funds to increase the size of the Army, the Army Reserve, or the Army National Guard. Can you say "draft"? I knew you could.

    That the policies Dubbyuh is putting forth are contrary to American values is a gross understatement. It fails the poor and the middle classes, who must work ever harder to keep their heads above water while the wealthiest 1% bask in the benefits of those policies. And we have yet to pay the piper for these policies. But you can rest assured that the poor and the middle class will be the ones to take it in the shorts
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Bully it is a PROPOSAL. Let's give Congress their chance. :teeth:
     
  3. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Bulley, again you grace us with another of your classic unlinked copy-paste jobs. I know your our personal debate trainer on this board, but I'm tired, so I'll just put in a short workout on one of the better paragraphs you repeated from some unknown author.

    As a Gladiator, I ask, are you entertained? :chains:

    God, I love it when we've seen no domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11, and all the left can say is it's not a "record". Huh? Are we in the olympics or something? I mean a win is a win.

    And even better when we hear that there is no "war". Like c'mon, dude, chill out. 9/11 was just a bad trip, dude.

    I mean it's one thing to call it a war on 'terror', but a 'war' on terror? Huh? You mean it's not a war, but a 'pillowfight' on terror?

    Jeez.

    Oh what? WHAT???

    oh dear God THE INFLATION!!!

    Yes, I do believe there is a draft, whistling through your ears and coming out through your nostrils.
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Admit it Bully----you had the hots for Laura but she dumped you for George.
     
  5. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Ewww!
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    So we are reducing $350B in domestic discretionary spending this FY, and reducing revenue by $130B this FY. That's a savings (deficit reduction) of $220 billion. Weren't you just complaining about the deficit - and now you're complaining about cutting the deficit?!?

    Frankly, I would love for military programs to get the same scrutiny that other domestic spending gets. But the fact remains that we are at war, and war is expensive.

    Again: war is expensive. I am not a fan of the supplemental budget strategy, but I think it's safe to say that we can at least estimate its costs. And the war in Afghanistan and Iraq will not last forever.

    Frankly, I'm glad Bush is lowering taxes. And it's not like poor people can get an income tax cut - they don't pay taxes anyway!!! And who are you to say what the wealthy's "fair share" of taxes are? I think "fair" would be an equal percentage of taxes across the board.

    PayGo rules are not "skews," they are good rules for accountability.

    Frankly, I believe - as do many Republicans - that state and local governments are best equipped to help the poor and disabled. I would love to see federal welfare programs go away completely, to be replaced by state programs that accomplish the same goals.

    Yaaaawwwnnnn... are you really spouting off about the draft again? Can't you guys be a little more original?

    Class warfare, class warfare, class warfare... c'mon, everybody, sing it with me!
     
  7. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379

    You rapier-like wit and snappy repartee are wonderful, but really don't apply to the issue. But that is sadly typical of Dubbyuh's slavish admirers. Can't debate the issue so they change the subject, hurl insults, pout. You've learned you lessons well and you'll make a fine apparatchik.
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    * Bully climbs his pedestal to throw stones again*
     

Share This Page