Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cynical-Chick · 02-06-2005, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narapoia

:rolling: :rolling:

I always wonder what the people who voted for him think when they look at this kind of stupidity.

Dur..hur...hur...

Bush loves Jebus. Bush is showin' thim durty lib'ruls who's boss! At least my taxes won't go up. This war and the guv'mint is FREE!

:/

Tom Sawyer · 02-07-2005, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narapoia

:rolling: :rolling:

I always wonder what the people who voted for him think when they look at this kind of stupidity.

I honestly think that many of them will get raptured away before the bill comes due.

That, or a few decades of public school funding cuts are beginning to have their effect.

atechnie · 02-07-2005, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narapoia

:rolling: :rolling:

I always wonder what the people who voted for him think when they look at this kind of stupidity.

Many of them don't - or else (I remained convinced) they wouldn't have voted for him. They just see his more "positive" qualities (against gay rights, against abortion, etc.)

-atechnie

dismal · 02-07-2005, 06:59 AM

Crap, that sort of article reminds me how much I hate our budget process.

Only in Government is growing at inflation (2.3%) characterized as a dramatic show of restraint. And that's after characterizing the bulk of spending as "non-discretionary" so it can grow faster.

Sadly, in spite of the lameness of this plan, you can count on it being criticized by Democrats and the media as draconian cuts.

So, once again we'll have a dramatic partisan debate over the choices whether a) to grow government somewhat faster than inflation, or b) 2% above somewhat faster than inflation.

Answerer · 02-07-2005, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narapoia

:rolling: :rolling:

I always wonder what the people who voted for him think when they look at this kind of stupidity.

You can get your answer simply by asking Hooboy about his views on this.

Jimmy Higgins · 02-07-2005, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dismal

Crap, that sort of article reminds me how much I hate our budget process.

Only in Government is growing at inflation (2.3%) characterized as a dramatic show of restraint. And that's after characterizing the bulk of spending as "non-discretionary" so it can grow faster.

Sadly, in spite of the lameness of this plan, you can count on it being criticized by Democrats and the media as draconian cuts.

So, once again we'll have a dramatic partisan debate over the choices whether a) to grow government somewhat faster than inflation, or b) 2% above somewhat faster than inflation.

Swing and a miss.

Trout · 02-07-2005, 10:13 AM

You've got to be kidding me. Thoughts on this plan?

Quote:

The $2.58 trillion (£1.38 trillion) budget includes reduction in subsidies to farmers, and lower spending on the environment, education, and health.

The budget document projects the deficit will rise to $427bn this year, before starting to decline.

Military spending will, however, rise 4.8% to $419.3bn in 2006.

The budget does not include the cost of running military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the administration is expected to seek an extra $80bn from Congress later this year.

Quote:

The outline proposes reductions in budgets at 12 out of 23 government agencies including cuts of 9.6% at Agriculture and 5.6% at the Environment Protection Agency.

The spending plan for the year beginning October 1 is banking on a healthy US economy to boost government income by 6.1% to $2.18 trillion. Spending is forecast to grow by 3.5% to $2.57 trillion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4243807.stm

Trout · 02-07-2005, 10:31 AM

BBC site for the source. The areas he's cutting vs. increasing get me.

Quote:

The $2.58 trillion (£1.38 trillion) budget includes reduction in subsidies to farmers, and lower spending on the environment, education, and health.

The budget document projects the deficit will rise to $427bn this year, before starting to decline.

Military spending will, however, rise 4.8% to $419.3bn in 2006.

The budget does not include the cost of running military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the administration is expected to seek an extra $80bn from Congress later this year.

Quote:

The outline proposes reductions in budgets at 12 out of 23 government agencies including cuts of 9.6% at Agriculture and 5.6% at the Environment Protection Agency.

The spending plan for the year beginning October 1 is banking on a healthy US economy to boost government income by 6.1% to $2.18 trillion. Spending is forecast to grow by 3.5% to $2.57 trillion.

Haener · 02-07-2005, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trout

Thoughts on this plan?

But of course...

(source)

Quote:

The $2.58 trillion (£1.38 trillion) budget includes reduction in subsidies to farmers

:thumbs:

Quote:

The budget does not include the cost of running military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the administration is expected to seek an extra $80bn from Congress later this year.

:down:
This is utterly stupid. A budget should include all expenditures. Didn't they teach that at Bush's MBA? In other words; the deficit is not $427 billion but more someting like $500 billion (or half a trillion if you like really big number).

I don't know enough about the other proposed budget cuts as to exactly what they are applied to but given the record of this administration it's likely I will disagree with many of them.

Quote:

Another key policy spending missing from proposals is the cost of funding the administration's proposed radical overhaul of Social Security provision, the federal programme on which many Americans rely for their retirement income.

Well, allthough the proposed overhaul of SS still has to go through congress it is again a major issue missing from the budget. If it passes then add another couple of billions to the deficit in 2005 and more after that. The money has to come from somewhere.

ImGod · 02-07-2005, 10:40 AM

For more information from the source. Office of Management and Budget

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-07-2005, 06:59 AM	#14
dismal Contributor Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 18,348	Crap, that sort of article reminds me how much I hate our budget process. Only in Government is growing at inflation (2.3%) characterized as a dramatic show of restraint. And that's after characterizing the bulk of spending as "non-discretionary" so it can grow faster. Sadly, in spite of the lameness of this plan, you can count on it being criticized by Democrats and the media as draconian cuts. So, once again we'll have a dramatic partisan debate over the choices whether a) to grow government somewhat faster than inflation, or b) 2% above somewhat faster than inflation.

02-07-2005, 10:40 AM	#20
ImGod Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Nebraska Posts: 6,264	For more information from the source. Office of Management and Budget

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.