PDA

View Full Version : The Budget



Qtec
02-06-2006, 07:48 AM
Bush Budget Plan Strikes Home, Not Deficit
By Joel Havemann
Times Staff Writer

February 6, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush today will propose a $2.7-trillion budget that would take another slice out of domestic spending next year — but still leave a huge $355-billion deficit.

In Bush's budget for fiscal year 2007, which begins Oct. 1, the departments of Defense and Homeland Security would continue to grow at a rate greater than inflation.

But most other federal departments, from Agriculture to Veterans Affairs, will be asked to get along next year with less money, and with no allowance for inflation or population growth..

Altogether, Bush's budget would save $14.5 billion next year by eliminating or sharply curtailing 141 federal programs — fulfilling his vow in last week's State of the Union address to reduce the costs of what he called "non-security discretionary spending."

Broken down, those range from a relatively small nick in Medicare's enormous growth to the virtual elimination of a small program that distributes food to the elderly.

The administration would continue to chip away at entitlement programs, which mandate that certain groups, such as the elderly and the poor, receive federal benefits. The savings in this category would be $65 billion over the next five years.

Bush's proposed budget, however, is only preliminary because it has not undergone congressional review and debate.

It also does not include the full cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.






I totally agree with GW this time. If we are going to win the war on terror, everyone will have to make sacrifices. Let the old ladies get there own friggen shopping- they've got wheelchairs havent they?. They've also got those walker things, you know, it looks like a high table with the top missing.
They may complain about rhumatism, or mutter something about a pacemaker but dont fall for it. They can move pretty swiftley at 6 o'clock when its happy hour at the local bar. Just tell them, "suck it it in Granny, its for Home Security".
With this extra money, even more US citizens [ ie maybe possible potential terrorists] can be targeted. [ ie have their house searched, e-mails opened and phone-calls listened to etc] cos you never know!

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
02-06-2006, 10:25 AM
Well it is a step in the right direction as far as I am concerned. While he has not actually reduced spending maybe (I won't hold my breath) that will be coming shortly. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif All he is doing is shifting around the spending. However it does mean less new spending which certainly is always good.

By the way Q, I am sure you were the first person to sign up to go shopping for all those poor little old ladies. I mean, you really do care for them don't you? This isn't some dumb sarcasm just so you get across your agenda is it? I bet you are out right now helping them across the street and picking up their groceries for them. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-06-2006, 01:29 PM
Q, what budget?
BUDGET.....
a statement of the financial position of an administration for a definite period of time based on estimates of expenditures during the period and proposals for financing them b : a plan for the coordination of resources and expenditures c : the amount of money that is available for, required for, or assigned to a particular purpose

Gayle in MD
02-06-2006, 09:10 PM
HA HA HA, when I read the post, I thought exactly the same thing. WHAT BUDGET? I really think that Bush only went to the white house to go to war in Iraq, and insure that he and his Dad, and Cheney can continue to get richer through oil, and Halliburton. Wonder how much Halliburton in funneling to Bush and Cheney under the table, after they steal it from we tax payers.

Bush's budget is a total disgrace. The inequities are too numerous to name.

Gayle in Md.

Drop1
02-06-2006, 09:57 PM
What step,what direction? How is the United States better off,not knowing the cost of the war in Iraq. We are not winning anything. How does a bankrupt country have a policy on anything? We are spending two billion dollars a day,and borrowing 43% of that amount. In my opinion this is an effort to create prosperity by fear. The .... is about to hit the fan. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Qtec
02-06-2006, 10:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Q, what budget?
<hr /></blockquote>

As GW would say,<font color="blue"> “It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it.”</font color>
The biggest problem is, <font color="blue"> “Most imports are from outside of the country”</font color>
At least we know what he stands for.
<font color="blue"> “What I'm against is quotas. I'm against hard quotas, quotas that basically delineate based upon whatever. However they delineate, quotas, I think, vulcanize society.”</font color>

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Drop1
02-06-2006, 10:13 PM
HA HA HA Thanks man I needed that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
02-07-2006, 05:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What step,what direction? <hr /></blockquote> Go back and read it, I was pretty clear.

eg8r

Drop1
02-07-2006, 01:05 PM
I read it again,and now I see the errors of spending money on Social programs,education,medical aid,the poor,the old,the homeless. How could I have been so wrong,when right there in your post,it says spending less new /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif money is better. I wonder when those carriers are going to the China Seas,to keep an eye on China's new surge in building up it's military. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

wolfdancer
02-07-2006, 02:19 PM
Welcome to the newest menber of the "you must reread my (eg8r's) posts" club.
apparently, like the Book of Revelations, or Mary Baker Eddy's "Key to the Scriptures" the true meanings of his posts are not revealed until after several readings.
"Less is more" it sounds Orwellian to me, but I didn't read the post.
If what i did read is correct though, about no more funding for walkers, canes, wheelchairs, and assorted other unnecessary contravances....imagine the huge savings....we might even be able to finance the war for 10, or 15 min

onepocketfanatic
02-07-2006, 06:22 PM
The only thing that trimming spending at home for the elderly and such does is allow the goons in Washington to add more pork to their bills for pet projects and special interest. Our political system is nothing but a sham for legal (and in some cases illegal) graft for those in power.
What ever happened to the system of if you want to spend more, you have to decrease spending somewhere else?

Drop1
02-07-2006, 07:44 PM
You mean to tell me Mary Baker Eddy,did not right the Book of Revelations. I gotta go back,and review my Great Book of Ignorance,and try to balance it with my Little Book of Knowledge. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran Crimi
02-08-2006, 12:33 AM
This is so ridiculous, it isn't even funny.

I just went online and reviewed the NYC Meals on Wheels Tax Return. Yes, it's public. In 2004 they took in 14.8 million in income for food distribution for the homebounds.

Out of that 14.8, 13.6 million came from the public sector. 1.2 Million came from government funding.

The homebound people are not going to starve. The difference can be made up in the public sector.

Government funds are distributed throughout the country proportionately. It will be the same for all the other states.

See how things can get distorted to ridiculousness?

Fran

eg8r
02-08-2006, 05:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Welcome to the newest menber of the "you must reread my (eg8r's) posts" club.
apparently, like the Book of Revelations, or Mary Baker Eddy's "Key to the Scriptures" the true meanings of his posts are not revealed until after several readings.
<hr /></blockquote> Wolf, I try and keep things clear but your ability to twist it requires you to go back and reread if you are in any way wanting some sort of conversation. I am not going to comment on a post when you have distorted what I say.

eg8r

eg8r
02-08-2006, 05:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What ever happened to the system of if you want to spend more, you have to decrease spending somewhere else? <hr /></blockquote> That went away when the Dems took office. You could see the light bulb turn on in their head, they felt if you want to spend more you need to tax more. The problem we are currently facing is that Bush is quite the moderate in that he has taken parts of the left and right and come up with a horrible solution of spend more, bring in less.

Up until this point, W has not shown he had the capacity to understand he must reduce spending in some areas to increase in others. While he has done a fair job in reducing some taxes, he has not done anything to reduce spending. This definitely is a disaster waiting to happen.

The differences between the left and the right:
<ul type="square"> Left believes we should tax the crap out of the rich and redistribute it to the poor The right believes we should reduce taxes and reduce the size of government (less income redistribution) [/list] Bush does not fall in either of those buckets completely. On Government spending he is the true Moderate.

eg8r

DickLeonard
02-08-2006, 07:01 AM
Fran I don't think you understand how the gov. works. California receives 3 dollars for every dollar it sends to Washington,Texas receives 2.50. Mew york receives .60 on every dollar.

We cannot deny Welfare to any one, One day in NY and your eligible. Now they are cutting the programs that they have mandated we provide to anyone who steps foot in New York.

Let no state get back no more than 60% of what it sends to Washington and this country would be straighten out.

Reagan and Bushes plan is to destroy our country to eliminate SS and other entitlements while shifting the money to the Rich who bribe them. There can be no other reason for supposedly Conservative Presidents to spend so wildly putting us so deep in debt.,

When the S--t hits the fan this time the riots will not be in Watts it will be on K Street. The first one lynched will be Grover Norquist. Jack Abramoff won't be safe in Jail.

Thanks to the Gun Lobby the Populace will be well armed not using bricks.

Fran Crimi
02-08-2006, 07:14 AM
Hi Dick,

I'm sure there's a reason for the calculation of how much each state receives. That's what I meant by proportionate. The numbers aren't just pulled out of the air.

People aren't going to starve as a result of this type of cut. Isn't that what's important? In fact, it's quite the opposite. I've seen those meals. My uncle was homebound and received them for two years. He received 2 huge meals a day, including dessert and beverages, and even though he was a rather large man, he could not finish both and would stockpile leftovers in the frig. After awhile, I had to come over to the house and eat some of it myself just to keep it from becoming waste.

I think the portions were so big because they were required to account for spending the money on food, and they had more money than recipients in the program.

Even if they were to cut the portions in half, people would do just fine.

Fran

Deeman3
02-08-2006, 07:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Welcome to the newest menber of the "you must reread my (eg8r's) posts" club.
apparently, like the Book of Revelations, or Mary Baker Eddy's "Key to the Scriptures" the true meanings of his posts are not revealed until after several readings. <font color="blue"> There is no life, truth, intellegence nor substance in matter. All is infinite mind and it's infinite manifestations, God is all-in-all. MBE </font color>
"Less is more" it sounds Orwellian to me, but I didn't read the post.
If what i did read is correct though, about no more funding for walkers, canes, wheelchairs, and assorted other unnecessary contravances....imagine the huge savings....we might even be able to finance the war for 10, or 15 min <hr /></blockquote>

DickLeonard
02-08-2006, 08:56 AM
Fran it has nothing to do with reasoning, the Speaker of the House for 40years was from Texas why were there 3 army bases and four Air Force Bases to attack Mexico. California has so many Rep that they control the legislation, if they vote as a block they will defeat any bill before the Congress.

All the wealth in this country was generated from a little street in New York, it has its own TV Channel. The street is Wall Street and CNBC covers it daily.

Elloit Spitzer just capture another Corp to the tune of a Billion and a half. He could make NY the richest state in the World with twice as many Investigators. Every Corp is a thief. AIG owned by Warren Buffet has to pay that fine, the third richest man in the world, companies have to resort to unethical behavior.####

Fran Crimi
02-08-2006, 10:24 AM
Yes, there are army bases in Texas, and yes, there are a lot of California reps because California has a lot of people. Yes, there is corruption in some corps and yes, Elliot Spitzer is going after them. Yes, there is big money on Wall Street.

And YES, the homebound will not starve due to funding cuts.

I know it makes you angry to see these types of budget cuts when others are "getting away with it." But the reality is that the other bigger problems aren't going to be solved in the short term. Spitzer is doing a good job in going after these people. I guarantee his incentive is money. NYC never fully recovered from 9-11. We need money. Then maybe we can reopen some of those closed firehouses so they can get to the homebound faster to put out their fires and maybe save a few more lives.

Watch how corruption gets addressed much more quickly when you put the burden of raising money more on the states. Suddenly state's attorney generals, inspector generals and district attorneys start to wake-up.

Fran

DickLeonard
02-09-2006, 05:32 AM
Fran when the Federal Gov. mandates programs they must be the one supporting them. Once they back off the the state must amend the law to fit into their available tax money. Not being able to alter the law is taxation without representation.####

Fran Crimi
02-09-2006, 08:21 AM
I'm sorry, Dick. I must have missed that law that mandates that homebound people must receive free food deliveries. When did that come into effect?

Fran

Fran Crimi
02-09-2006, 08:58 AM
Oh and I forgot to mention...

Here's how the free food delivery program works:

You don't have to be elderly. You don't have to live alone. You don't have to make any financial declarations. You just have to be homebound.

So, therefore, this scenario is possible: You are homebound but your wife is not. Both you and your wife can eat for free based on the meal portions you receive, and even though you may have $300,000 in the bank, you don't have to pay a penny for the food.

And that's mandated? I don't think so.

Fran