Bush couldn't run a hot dog stand

spillmind

Member
Sep 1, 2003
780
13
16
Palo Alto, Ca.
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!
 
Bush couldn't run a hot dog stand

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!
 
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!
 
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.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
actually, to get right down to brass tax
Nice pun.


Originally posted by DKSuddeth
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.
Then perhaps the "poor" will work smarter to ensure their continued survival/advancement.
 
Then perhaps the "poor" will work smarter to ensure their continued survival/advancement.

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.
 
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:

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

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!

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

i would LOVE to know what on EARTH you are talking about 'benefits'... please enlighten us! :laugh:
 
Originally posted by spillmind


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:
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.
 
Perhaps you are a product of our deteriorating public schools???

yeah, actually, and what of it? another testament to your 'benefits'? :laugh:

i put MYSELF through college because my parents we POOR.

so what exactly do you mean by:
Then perhaps the "poor" will work smarter to ensure their continued survival/advancement.
:confused:

were you being 'fair' to those who don't have luxury of the 'rich', not lucky enough to be simply born on some other level of the playing field? maybe i misinterpreted that. :rolleyes:

some people simply don't enjoy the same OPPORTUNITIES as others do. you want to say it's a level playing field for ANYONE to succeed? i would disagree.

the government works for us, not the other way around.

...still waiting to hear about those 'benefits' you were touting. or did you pull an old bush 180° on that one??
:laugh:
 
iginally posted by spillmind [/i]
yeah, actually, and what of it? another testament to your 'benefits'? :laugh:

i put MYSELF through college because my parents we POOR.

so what exactly do you mean by:
:confused:

were you being 'fair' to those who don't have luxury of the 'rich', not lucky enough to be simply born on some other level of the playing field? maybe i misinterpreted that. :rolleyes:

some people simply don't enjoy the same OPPORTUNITIES as others do. you want to say it's a level playing field for ANYONE to succeed? i would disagree.

the government works for us, not the other way around.

...still waiting to hear about those 'benefits' you were touting. or did you pull an old bush 180° on that one??
:laugh:
[/QUOTE]

Spillmind, of course people are born into different socioeconomic circumstances, this is simply a fact of living in a non marxist society, though actually most attempts at marxist societies led to an even more lopsided concentration of power and luxury in the hands of the government. But I digress. Regardless of the circumstance you're born into, continuing to blame society for past facts and failures of prior generations of your family isn't adaptive, nor is it conducive to personal success.
 
Regardless of the circumstance you're born into, continuing to blame society for past facts and failures of prior generations of your family isn't adaptive, nor is it conducive to personal success.

i wholeheartedly agree. however, the statement:

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

is a bit too much grey area to cover with a short-sided summarization- into a statement like this. people are TRYING to be adaptive, and some struggle much more than others do- nobody WANTS to be homeless, but the little guy will have a small impact on the widening gap between the rich and the poor, as usual.
 
Sometimes people do choose to be homeless. I've known a couple. And the little guy always has an impact on his own life, at least in America they do. Your constant negativisim is offputting to me. I'm a cockeyed optimist.
 
i would say many more people just wind up being homeless than actually choosing to be, but i don't have a report to state that this is fact or not.

i am an eternal optimist in raw human nature, but a realist when it comes to money and politics.
 
Originally posted by spillmind
i would say many more people just wind up being homeless than actually choosing to be, but i don't have a report to state that this is fact or not.

i am an eternal optimist in raw human nature, but a realist when it comes to money and politics.
There are very few people who are homeless through no fault of their own. The sad fact is that the choices we make affect our lives in serious ways. Too many people who are supposedly dealt a bad hand expect someone else to rescue them or go down the wrong path as victims.

Sadder yet, is that with all the money and programs set up by our government so many people still fail to take advantage of the myriad ways to better their lives. There is opportunity- too many just blow it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top