bush's FY 2006 budget

[bishop]

so, bush just released his proposed budget. it cuts many programs, ensures that his tax cuts remain intact (and unaccounted for), and keeps iraq and afghanistan off-budget as usual. they're projecting that the deficit will shrink to a still-massive $390 billion, from $426 in the previous budget. using their estimates, and adding on a reasonable expense of $60 billion for afghanistan and iraq, the budget deficit will be $450 billion, setting yet another record. (if the war expenses are $36 billion, which is a huge underestimate, he will tie last year's record.)

plus, it makes no mention of the costs of reforming social security.


other cuts include a 10% reduction at the department of agriculture. incidentally, most farming states have elected republicans to office - do you think these representatives will rubber stamp bush's budget or will they represent their constituents' interests?


just like the state of the union was a whole lot of hot air, so is this budget from what i'm initially seeing.

a related article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May26.html


*edit to add*

i wonder how long his tax cuts can remain intact given the massive accumulation of debt he's responsible for allowing.

[bishop]

wow.. this is DESPICABLE... i just heard on the news that this budget doesn't include anything about the AMT (alternative minimum tax). i'll post a link whenever it's documented on the net.


i guess i was wrong, bush isn't against raising taxes.. so long as the tax increase affects middle-low income families. what a great guy, i'm glad that all these people who voted for him believed him when he said that kerry was going to raise their taxes. little did they know that he (bush) was planning on raising their taxes.

[bishop]

and as another aside.. the budget will kill the hubble telescope.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

now, i'm not sure if the hubble is worth saving, but it certainly has aided much to scientists' understanding of our universe. but alas, we have to give the iraqis healthcare, along with a welfare check to israel and egypt... i love bush's "priorities".

[ericsp23]

So the other shoe finally falls.
One has to wonder if people would have supported the tax cuts as much if these budget cuts had been publicized at the same time as the tax cuts.

[tivodan1116]

i support all tax and budget cuts with the caveat that to date, none have gone nearly far enough.

Why are we spending almost $10,000 per yer for every man, woman, and child in the United States on our federal budget? Why is the sum total of government budgets in this country over 30% of our GDP?

These are the questions we need to be asking, not "gee we cut 10% from Dept of Ag, you think farmers are going to be pissed?" If they truly understood how economics works, they wouldn't be.

[bishop]

my comment about the department of agriculture cuts was intended to suggest that republicans would not support bush's spending cuts - since those cuts are not supported by their constituents. just one example of how this proposal is a whole lot of hot air.

and as far as tax cuts go, it speaks volumes that he's sticking with his income tax cuts, while allowing the AMT cuts to disappear. one of these affects average, working americans much more than the other.

i wonder what changes have been made as far as our foreign aid is concerned.. haven't heard anything about that, but i'm sure payments stayed at least as high as they currently are.

spending us deeeeep into the poor house. i believe that when you add in the expenses that he's keeping off budget, this year will be a new record deficit.

[rmnunez]

On taxes, as always, the fewer the better, I'd like everyone to get as many tax breaks as possible. I'm not sure its so good to disproportionately favour higher-income levels, but this is ancillary to the good thing of having taxes reduced. I'd like to see the end to the "Death Tax" in the US too.

I'd read the budget calls for reductions in farm subsidies (a good thing) but I'd anticipate those who realize the savings are for the war effort will decry them too.

Bishop:

it makes no mention of the costs of reforming social security

Don't be a fool, reforming Social Security is supposed to be about reducing costs, not adding them.

What "costs" are you talking about? There are reductions in health-care across the board in the new budget.

There are proposals to allow partial privatization of SS revenues, decoupling national and SS finances (though nothing in this budget for that).

[bishop]

On taxes, as always, the fewer the better, I'd like everyone to get as many tax breaks as possible. I'm not sure its so good to disproportionately favour higher-income levels, but this is ancillary to the good thing of having taxes reduced. I'd like to see the end to the "Death Tax" in the US too.

sure... but gotta make sure that the AMT tax returns, just so that you can screw all them middle/low class people and make sure that the system mirrors margaret thatcher's regressivism. i'm sure they appreciate all the spending cuts on programs that benefit them, while getting to pay higher taxes at the same time.

I'd read the budget calls for reductions in farm subsidies (a good thing) but I'd anticipate those who realize the savings are for the war effort will decry them too.

yes, because it is wrong to piss all of our money away on fighting unnecessary wars, while ignoring issues here at home. it is even worse to make life less pleasant here at home and using the money saved to fund bush's nation building project. but, it seems that the iraqis come first, americans come second.

Don't be a fool, reforming Social Security is supposed to be about reducing costs, not adding them. What "costs" are you talking about? There are reductions in health-care across the board in the new budget. There are proposals to allow partial privatization of SS revenues, decoupling national and SS finances (though nothing in this budget for that).

heh.. you telling me not to be a fool is funny.

first with social security. there will be costs associated with its reform. HUGE costs to the tune of $2 trillion. even when a company invests money for an expected long-term reduction in costs, they account the money spent on improving the process. just another example of bush being dishonest.

and across the board reductions in health-care... you mean that his prescription drug plan is going to defy the fact that healthcare costs continue to rise, and somehow be cheaper? heh.. across the board my ass, he's just making piecemeal cuts on programs that poor seniors benefit from, while raising taxes on lower/middle income workers, and cutting programs that they benefit from. the rich, however, win hands down.

[bishop]

and, here's an article about the AMT tax.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/08/news...cuts/index.htm


bush is no friend to the middle class whatsoever.

[RickSp]

Bush's proposed spending cuts are a bad joke. How many of the 150 will actually be enacted? 10%, if he is lucky. No cuts for Stars Wars, current and future wars are off budget, and continued breaks for the wealthy.

I find it darkly amusing that Bush considers deficits in Social Security forty years out to be a "crisis" but is completely unperturbed by huge budget deficits today and continuing on with no end in sight. It would be funny if it wasn't my country that he is destroying.

[Matrixxx]

I hope the clintonian trend of weakening our military and intelligence through cutbacks is a thing of the past, what do you suppose is the cost for rebuilding it is all about? Our military and our intelligence is a priority, if we haven't learned that lesson yet we never will.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Matrixxx I hope the clintonian trend of weakening our military and intelligence through cutbacks is a thing of the past, what do you suppose is the cost for rebuilding it is all about? Our military and our intelligence is a priority, if we haven't learned that lesson yet we never will.

Let's see, Bush and his war criminal accomplice, Rumsfeld, have succeeded in nearly crippling the military by overextending and overreaching, not to mention a total lack of planning or foresight. As much as I loathed Clinton, I miss his relative prudence.

[Matrixxx]

That is the sorriest post of cherry picking rhetoric I have ever heard. Fine, you hate Bush, what now?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Matrixxx That is the sorriest post of cherry picking rhetoric I have ever heard. Fine, you hate Bush, what now?

I don't give a damn about the man personally. He is just another spoiled rich man's kid. I do hate his policies, as would any conservative with half a brain. Anyone with any fondness for the Bill of Rights, a distaste for naked imperialism and a respect for fiscal prudence can hardly be an admirer of George Dubya.

Blaming everything on Clinton, at this point is so bizarrely stupid, as to be merely laughable.

[Matrixxx]

When Reagan left office we had a much more impressive military than what we had when Clinton left office. I am not blaming everything on Bill, but the fact remains the man let our military and our intelligence fall off and we have suffered for it gravely.

As far as "anyone who doesn't agree with me doesn't have half a brain" thinking is concerned, thank you for showing me up front what the jig is, debating you would simply be a pissing contest that I would rather not engage in. Thanks.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Matrixxx When Reagan left office we had a much more impressive military than what we had when Clinton left office. I am not blaming everything on Bill, but the fact remains the man let our military and our intelligence fall off and we have suffered for it gravely. As far as "anyone who doesn't agree with me doesn't have half a brain" thinking is concerned, thank you for showing me up front what the jig is, debating you would simply be a pissing contest that I would rather not engage in. Thanks.

Given that this is a thread about budgets, Reagan left us huge deficits while Clinton left a small surplus. And of course Reagan supplied arms and logistics support to our good friend and ally Saddam Hussien. Reagan even supplied him with helicopters that he used to drop gas bombs, back in the day when Saddam really did have WMD.

Regarding debating styles, if you can't handle direct discourse, well that is your issue, I suppose.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Matrixxx When Reagan left office we had a much more impressive military than what we had when Clinton left office. I am not blaming everything on Bill, but the fact remains the man let our military and our intelligence fall off and we have suffered for it gravely.

Not sure if you've decided to boycott this thread after your last post, M, but a question is being begged here: What do you mean by "letting our military and our intelligence fall off"?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: fushigi Not sure if you've decided to boycott this thread after your last post, M, but a question is being begged here: What do you mean by "letting our military and our intelligence fall off"?

Yeah, how can you think that our intel has fallen off when the head of the CIA for the last seven years (and who was also responsible for the gaps in intel that lead to - 1. Totally missing the preparations for a series of Indian/Pakistani nuclear bomb tests in 1998, 2. Mistakenly targeting the Chinese embassy for U.S. bombers in 1999, and, 3 Providing the bogus intel that led directly to an invasion and war with Iraq over non-existant WMD's), anyway, how can our intel be faulty if such a leader was just recently presented with the nation's highest civil award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bush?

[fushigi]

But was Bill Clinton personally responsible for those errors?

[bishop]

I hope the clintonian trend of weakening our military and intelligence through cutbacks is a thing of the past, what do you suppose is the cost for rebuilding it is all about? Our military and our intelligence is a priority, if we haven't learned that lesson yet we never will.

yes, we should spend all we can on the military. i say we aren't spending enough. we should up it to 10% of gdp. we need to be even more militaristic, so that we can engage ourselves throughout the world, spreading democracy wherever we see people in distress. and at the same time, we have to ensure that those who already have a ton of money get even more money with generous tax cuts, while the pleebs who reside in the middle/lower classes experience tax increases through the AMT, and see their overall disposable income shrink thanks to inflation (caused by sky high budget deficits).



heh, i see the logic of the bush perspective so clear now...

btw, rick.. i'm too tired to look for a link right now, but i remember reading that he actually cut the budget for star wars. heh, i think it was a mighty drop of $3 billion though (from $19 billion to begin with), so take that for what it's worth - not much.