Home | Community | Message Board


MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
$2.57 Trillion Budget
    #3747270 - 02/07/05 09:16 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Bush Proposes Steep Cuts in $2.57T Budget
Feb 7, 8:29 PM (ET)
By ALAN FRAM

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush proposed a $2.57 trillion budget Monday that would erase scores of programs and slice Medicaid, disabled housing and many more but still worsen federal deficits by $42 billion over the next five years.

In one of the most austere presidential budgets in years - one that faces precarious prospects in Congress - Bush would give nine of the 15 Cabinet-level departments less money in 2006 than they are getting this year. Overall, he would cut non-security domestic spending - excluding automatically paid benefits like Medicare - by nearly 1 percent next year. Bush said it was the first such reduction proposed by the White House since President Reagan's day.

Forty-eight education programs would be eliminated, including one for ridding drugs from schools. In all, more than 150 government-wide programs would be eliminated or slashed deeply, including Amtrak subsidies, oil and gas research, and grants to communities hiring police officers.

Bush would slow the growth of benefit programs by $137 billion over the next decade, nearly quadruple the savings he proposed a year ago with little success. Chief among the targets would be Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled, but farmers' payments, student loans and veterans medical services were also on the chopping block.

"It's a budget that focuses on results," Bush told reporters after meeting with his Cabinet. "The taxpayers of America don't want us spending our money into something that's not achieving results." (I wish he would listen to his own advice on the War on Drugs.)

Yet largely because of Bush's plans for a defense buildup, this year's Iraq and Afghanistan war costs, and a handful of new tax cuts, the budget shows that deficits over the five years ending in 2010 would total nearly $1.4 trillion.

That is $42 billion worse than they would be if the government continued current spending levels and made no tax-law changes other than making permanent his already enacted tax cuts, his budget tables showed.

Bush's blueprint would leave next year's deficit at an estimated $390 billion, and omits any new money next year for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That would be a reduction from last year's record $412 billion shortfall and would still leave Bush on his course to halve deficits by 2009, the White House said.

Even so, a $390 billion shortfall would be the third worst ever if his projection for $427 billion in red ink for this year comes true.

Without Bush's new tax and spending plans, the 2006 deficit would otherwise be $361 billion, the budget tables showed. The figures demonstrated how federal costs are soaring despite growing revenues the economy is pumping into the government.

"We have investments we need to be making," said White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton, referring to Bush's proposed military boost and other proposals. "Even so, we are significantly reducing the growth of spending" and moving toward halving the deficit.

Bush's package faced an uncertain fate in Congress, where conservatives seemed ready to demand deeper deficit reduction and Democrats - and some Republicans - were sure to resist its spending cuts.

Underscoring the jostling that lawmakers were preparing for, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., lauded the plan as "a blueprint to fund our nation's priorities" but called it "a good starting point for the Congress to begin its work."

Democrats chided the package for its proposed cuts and because they said it obscured more serious deficit problems ahead. They complained it excludes next year's war costs and the price tags of Bush's Social Security overhaul and of keeping the alternative minimum tax from affecting more middle-income families.

"Why is he playing this hide-and-seek game?" asked Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "I believe it's because he really doesn't want people to know where he is headed."

Among other proposals that deficit hawks considered unrealistic were the budget's assumption that spending for non-security programs would remain level at $389 billion over the next five years.

Bush was expected to propose an $81 billion war package for the rest of 2005 in a few days. Congress has already approved $25 billion for the year.

Besides omitting the impact of revamping Social Security, Bush proposed no specific savings at all from Medicare, the health program for the elderly and disabled. The $340 billion-a-year program, though $200 billion smaller than Social Security, faces a long-term solvency problem whose solution is technically and politically more complicated because of the intricacies of health costs.

Bush was using some of his budget cuts to funnel billions to White House priorities.

Defense and domestic security would both see healthy growth, as would select education, public housing, space and other programs. He would also create tax breaks totaling $74 billion over the next decade to encourage low-income people to buy health insurance.

Even so, the budget provided ample evidence that deficits were limiting his agenda.

Bush's proposed 4.8 percent increase for the Pentagon would bring its budget next year to $419.3 billion, excluding Iraq war costs. Yet 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.

He was seeking increases for perennial favorites like veterans health care, aid to low-income school districts, special education - but all dramatically less than he proposed last year.

Even his tax-cutting agenda was under the gun and had little new. Of the $1.4 trillion in 10-year tax cuts, more than $1.1 trillion was his oft-repeated call to make his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050208/D8841BR00.html

This is a good direction to be heading in, though we're not nearly there yet. Cut the budget to half of that $2.57 trillion and I'll applaud Bush as doing something good in his presidency.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: Ravus]
    #3747375 - 02/07/05 09:42 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)


Chief among the targets would be Medicaid

The Dem's are going to scream about that one.

Isn't it funny that Bush probably considers a budget where he only borrows 400 billion to be "austere" and "responsible".

:rolleyes:


Edited by RandalFlagg (02/07/05 09:45 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLe_Canard
Slightly Nutty

Registered: 05/17/03
Posts: 93,715
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: Ravus]
    #3747871 - 02/07/05 11:08 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

And that's not counting the cost of the Iraq war and estimated transition costs for the proposed Social Security "reforms". What really irks me is the fact that he acts like a big hero in cutting programs to reduce the deficit in an attempt to solve a problem his administration created! :nonono:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: Le_Canard]
    #3747965 - 02/07/05 11:21 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Cut military spending.


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekadakuda
The Great"Green".......East
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/21/04
Posts: 7,048
Loc: Asia
Last seen: 7 months, 9 days
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #3748093 - 02/07/05 11:42 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

FrankieJustTrypt said:
Cut military spending.




--------------------
The seeds you won't sow are the plants you dont grow.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekadakuda
The Great"Green".......East
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/21/04
Posts: 7,048
Loc: Asia
Last seen: 7 months, 9 days
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: kadakuda]
    #3748106 - 02/07/05 11:43 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

better yet dont vote in such douche bags....

are there any sources from a federal site explaing these? i trust the news as much as i trust bush.


--------------------
The seeds you won't sow are the plants you dont grow.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #3748177 - 02/07/05 11:53 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

FrankieJustTrypt said:
Cut military spending.




Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLe_Canard
Slightly Nutty

Registered: 05/17/03
Posts: 93,715
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: kadakuda]
    #3748182 - 02/07/05 11:54 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

kadakuda said:
better yet dont vote in such douche bags....




I'm happy to say I didn't, for what that's worth....

Quote:

are there any sources from a federal site explaing these? i trust the news as much as i trust bush.




I don't either. I doubt you'd find nothing on the federal site but pro-Bush policy bias. I could be wrong, but I don't think so...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: Le_Canard]
    #3748208 - 02/07/05 11:57 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

I think it's a good strategy. Just run us so deep into debt we nearly have to start cutting the size of the government just to get by, and in the future it'll only hopefully get worse. People understand money, and they'll soon understand that the government had squandered tens of trillions of their dollars.

Perhaps if this goes in long enough, we can even get some libertarian politicians and policies in to help solve the debt.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLe_Canard
Slightly Nutty

Registered: 05/17/03
Posts: 93,715
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: Ravus]
    #3748262 - 02/08/05 12:06 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

To tell the truth, I agree with some of the fiscal policies suggested by the Libertarian party, but I don't see eye-to eye with them on social issues and spending. Having said that, and then again, ANYONE would be better than Bush & Co......


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekadakuda
The Great"Green".......East
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/21/04
Posts: 7,048
Loc: Asia
Last seen: 7 months, 9 days
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: Le_Canard]
    #3748425 - 02/08/05 12:33 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

yes people say that about politicians all the time. ANYOEN would be better! tehn they vote out him and get some other douche in.....its my opinion that before things are gonna change people need to start voting IN who they believe CAN do the job. not voting OUT who they think CANT do the job...but i knwo many here will disagree with me cause "its never gonna happen".

in the united states do they not HAVE to display new laws/policies/agendas publicly so people can have access to how thier country is run?


--------------------
The seeds you won't sow are the plants you dont grow.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: Ravus]
    #3748806 - 02/08/05 01:25 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
I think it's a good strategy. Just run us so deep into debt we nearly have to start cutting the size of the government just to get by, and in the future it'll only hopefully get worse. People understand money, and they'll soon understand that the government had squandered tens of trillions of their dollars.

Perhaps if this goes in long enough, we can even get some libertarian politicians and policies in to help solve the debt.




Nader was a huge help in the 70's.  :thumbup:


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3749883 - 02/08/05 06:15 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

We need to start really cutting programs. Abolish the IRS, the FCC, Department of Education, FDA, and just keep cuttting. The Department of Homeland Security already has over a hundred thousand employees.

Imagine how pissed people would be if we actually had to balance the budget. People complain about big government but they don't want their own spending cut. Someday the system will hit the wall.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: Ravus]
    #3749916 - 02/08/05 06:29 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

I'm actually scared by how much I'm agreeing with some of Bush's more recent policy proposals. Maybe Divided_Sky was right, and he is in fact going to act like a fiscal conservative in his second term. On the other hand, I have a feeling that this is merely a way of freeing up money for more invasions. I predict massive spending increases in our foreign policy. I also fear that he will use the bait of economic freedom to lull people into a false sense of security while working behind the scenes to further restrict our civil liberties in the name of security.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3749965 - 02/08/05 07:17 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

JesusChrist said:
We need to start really cutting programs. Abolish the IRS, the FCC, Department of Education, FDA, and just keep cuttting. The Department of Homeland Security already has over a hundred thousand employees.

Imagine how pissed people would be if we actually had to balance the budget. People complain about big government but they don't want their own spending cut. Someday the system will hit the wall.




Hmm, I think I agree with abolishing everything, except for the FDA, they do serve an invaluable purpose IMO.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepsilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: Ravus]
    #3750018 - 02/08/05 08:07 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

This reporter does not think the cuts will amount to much. Do you think he is right?

Also the interest paid to the holders of national debt was about 320 billion last year, surely you can't keep borrowing to pay interest. I know my bank manager would have a word or two to say if I tried that with my current account.


Bush wields axe to ease deficit
By Rupert Cornwell
08 February 2005

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=608900

President George Bush yesterday sent Congress a $2.57 trillion (?1,370bn) budget for fiscal 2006, cutting or eliminating more than 150 government programmes. The package is presented as a first step towards halving the federal deficit by the time he leaves office in fewer than four years.

In the financial year starting on 1 October 2005, the budget deficit is projected to rise to a record $427bn (?231bn), roughly 3.5 per cent of GDP. But under pressure from conservative Republicans and the financial markets, Mr Bush is committed to reducing the shortfall to less than $230bn by 2009.

"It's a budget that reduces and eliminates redundancy. It's a lean budget," the President said yesterday. He called on Congress to show "fiscal responsibility", by passing the proposals speedily. But budget analysts and Democrats instantly attacked the proposals, while some Republicans predicted that even if the White House accomplished the political miracle of securing all the cuts it wants, the net impact would be barely $15bn.

US budgets, unlike their UK counterparts, are little more than a set of recommendations with no guarantee of passage even when, as now, the President's party controls both chambers on Capitol Hill. If the past is any guide, he may only achieve results in a score of the 150 programmes targeted. Some of the measures - a $1.2bn reduction in subsidies for the Amtrak rail service, a $6bn annual cut in Medicaid, the federal health programme for the poor, and lower farm subsidies - will be furiously contested. Others will run into an even deadlier foe, bureaucratic inertia.

The "twin deficits" in the federal budget and the current account are already casting a shadow over Mr Bush's ambitious second-term agenda, especially since this President, who has yet to veto a single spending measure passed by Congress, has yet to establish any credibility as a cost-cutter. Moreover, the cuts have been concentrated on so-called discretionary spending. They steer clear of the entitlement programmes Medicare and Social Security, which with the defence budget constitute two-thirds of government outlays.

Pentagon spending goes up by $19bn to $419bn, with priority for higher pay for servicemen and the overhaul of the military. But even that, greater than the military spending of the next 10 largest national defence budgets combined, excludes operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, running at $5bn a month, and for which Mr Bush last month requested an extra $80bn.

Other omissions undermine the White House forecasts. The planned deficit reduction makes the unlikely assumption that Mr Bush's first-term tax cuts will lapse as they are supposed to do under existing "sunset clauses". Second, no mention is made of Mr Bush's plan to part-privatise social security. If enacted, this would cost $754bn over the next 10 years, Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, acknowledged.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3755282 - 02/09/05 11:21 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

blacksabbathrulz said:

Hmm, I think I agree with abolishing everything, except for the FDA, they do serve an invaluable purpose IMO.




The FDA drives up the cost of every bit of medicine used in this country, and it is debatable whether they actually protect us from much of everything. Canada doesn't have an FDA. Europe doesn't have an FDA. Why aren't they dropping dead like flies? Why do you think that drugs are cheaper in foriegn countries? No FDA. Probably the most significant cost in drug development is the cost of American government regulation.

Screw them. The Government cure is worse than the disease.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLe_Canard
Slightly Nutty

Registered: 05/17/03
Posts: 93,715
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: Ravus]
    #3755295 - 02/09/05 11:29 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Well, let's consider this problem by using the WWBD (What Would Bush do?) method.
First we cut unimportant programs like Medicaid, educational and other services for the poor and disabled (I mean, fuck poor people and kids. They never vote anyway) and then looting all that lovely money from Social Security. Hmmm... good start, but it needs a little something else. Let's cut taxes for the wealthy! Problem solved! :rolleyes:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinejuende
feministpresence

Registered: 02/20/04
Posts: 729
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: Silversoul]
    #3760007 - 02/10/05 03:01 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
I'm actually scared by how much I'm agreeing with some of Bush's more recent policy proposals. Maybe Divided_Sky was right, and he is in fact going to act like a fiscal conservative in his second term. On the other hand, I have a feeling that this is merely a way of freeing up money for more invasions. I predict massive spending increases in our foreign policy. I also fear that he will use the bait of economic freedom to lull people into a false sense of security while working behind the scenes to further restrict our civil liberties in the name of security.




yes!

and the reason why you [and so many people] can agree with what bush and co. are doing with the budget is cuz is a pretty picture, seems alright and we are only seeing what they are projecting on us. there is alot of shit going on behind the scenes. he a puppetier of a puppetier. yes, its all about holding what we want infront of us like a carrot. but its between a foggy glass and there's somethingin our eye. so when we do really get close enough to see what it is it either too late[in a way] or we have been getting fucked by it already.. so yeah...

-jue


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
Re: $2.57 Trillion Budget [Re: Ravus]
    #14387418 - 05/02/11 10:33 AM (5 years, 10 months ago)

Ah, the good old days, when the Leftie press was moaning about a projected deficit of $42 billion "over the next five years."

And of course, Bush's proposal to cut the budget by a whopping one per cent was greeted by howls of outrage from pretty near everyone, especially including the ones who actually control the purse strings - Congress.

So the cut - tiny as it was - never happened.






Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* $2.77 trillion budget wilshire 686 12 02/09/06 12:40 PM
by Ancalagon
* US Budget Deficit Drops to 5-Year Low Luddite 688 2 10/14/07 10:25 PM
by afoaf
* Slashing the Budget? Solutarch 714 7 11/26/05 01:34 AM
by gregorio
* The Legacy of the Christmas Day Bomber in President Obama's Budget
( 1 2 all )
AltecLansing 1,854 22 02/05/10 09:09 PM
by RogerRabbit
* Bush Unveils $3.1 Trillion Spending Plan MistaUNGA 537 5 02/04/08 09:10 PM
by kidaihuan
* UN official predicts disaster if US delays budget! lonestar2004 239 0 11/29/05 08:34 PM
by lonestar2004
* US Congress approves budget cuts bukkake 319 0 02/03/06 03:43 PM
by bukkake
* Budget cuts.
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 1,634 26 12/24/05 06:17 PM
by RandalFlagg

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,051 topic views. 2 members, 2 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.09 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.