Bush's budget proposal

Drocket

Drocket

CAGiversary!
I figure this deserves its own topic, even though I'm not sure what to say about it. Its just so astoundingly bad that I don't know where to begin criticizing it. It includes large budget hikes to programs that already have so much money they don't seem to know what to do with it (Department of Homeland Security. Dunno what they're going to do with the extra money - go to Hawaii and have a party? Wait, they did that last year. Maybe they'll hit Disney World this year.)

Meanwhile, the only cuts come to programs that seem to be specially chosen to guarantee that they'll never get through Congress. Major cuts to the Army Corp of Engineers - what do we need those slackers for? All they do is save people's lives in major natural disasters. And while we're at it, lets get rid of verteran prescription drug benefits - no one will mind if our nation's veterans are begging on the streets for money to buy their medicines, right?

Even if all of Bush's 'cuts' were to go through, they wouldn't even make a dent in the deficit, and the increase in spending in other areas more than makes up for them. And it doesn't even include money they need for Iraq that they plan to ask for later, or the billion dollars that Bush needs for his social security overhaul. Seriously, is Bush TRYING to bankrupt our country? He couldn't do a better job of it if he tried.
 
And while we're at it, lets get rid of verteran prescription drug benefits - no one will mind if our nation's veterans are begging on the streets for money to buy their medicines, right?
Click to expand...

Umm....... they already do that. It appears bush got that one right, nobody would care. There's a bunch of them in boston.
 
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=5&u=/ap/20050206/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_budget

The five-year projections in the budget will show the deficit declining to about $230 billion in 2009, when a new president takes office.

Those projections do not take into account some big-ticket items: the military costs incurred in Iraq and Afghanistan, the price of making Bush's first term tax cuts permanent, or the transition costs for his No. 1 domestic priority, overhauling Social Security.
Click to expand...


What a complete and utter JOKE.
 
Even using imaginary future numbers that 'mysteriously' don't include major budget items, Bush can't balance the budget. It would be a joke if it weren't so sad.

Actually, forget sad - its freaking scary. We already have foreign nations begging us to get our debt under control because we're at risk of defaulting on our loans. If that happens, the US's currency is going to become worthless scraps of paper and we're going to enter into a world of problems that'll make the Great Depression seem like a fucking cake walk.
 
And he doesn't want to give Amtrak 1 billion, and he doesn't want to give NASA any real money to.

It cost 2.5 trillion dollars to go to the moon, and Bush wants to go to Mars on 18 billion?

I'm thinking next year Bush will be giving out money to gays that become straight.
 
[quote name='David85']And he doesn't want to give Amtrak 1 billion, and he doesn't want to give NASA any real money to.

It cost 2.5 trillion dollars to go to the moon, and Bush wants to go to Mars on 18 billion?

I'm thinking next year Bush will be giving out money to gays that become straight.[/quote]

Yeah but just think, if we find oil on Mars it will all be worth it.
 
Until any of you want to admit and tackle the fact that 80% of this and every year's budget includes entitlements that cannot and will not be touched arguing about the remaining 20% or so is pointless.

The budget, on every side of the aisle, regardless of who has control of the White House or Congress is pointless. These morons are arguing about the patterns the deck chairs on the Titanic are arranged in. Until these clueless SOB's are going to point to the 1,800 pound rhinocerous in the living room and say "Hey, we should do something about that!" neither party has the moral upper hand about budgetary or fiscal higher ground.

Point to this pet program or that pet program, this "good idea" versus the other "good ideas" that make up your shade of the political spectrum. The plain fact of the matter is our government has been entitiling people to things they cannot afford for 70 years and no one in elected office will do a damn thing to stop it.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The plain fact of the matter is our government has been entitiling people to things they cannot afford for 70 years and no one in elected office will do a damn thing to stop it.[/quote]
Clinton managed to afford it. So did Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson - Actually, only 3 presidents since World War 2 have managed to not afford it - Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. (and in a lot of ways, Bush Sr probably shouldn't be on the list because he took major steps to cut spending to clean up the mess that Reagan created.) Every other president since World War 2 has either broken even or paid down the national debt during his term in office. A mere 3 presidents in the past 60 years have so fucked up the budget that they ran a deficit. Interesting, isn't it?
 
Wait...... I got more good news!!!

The January jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics continues the bad news of the past four years. During President Bush's first term, the US economy had a net loss of three-quarters of a million private sector jobs. Despite three years of economic recovery, fewer Americans are employed in the private sector today than when Bush was first inaugurated four years ago.


The slight decline in the unemployment rate reported for January is not the result of new jobs; it is the result of large numbers of discouraged people, many with university degrees, dropping out of the work force. They cannot find employment and have given up looking.


During Bush's first term, the once fabled US economy has been unable to create jobs in export sectors or in import-competitive sectors. January's 134,000 new private sector jobs are in domestic services that cannot be outsourced: couriers and messengers, food services and drinking places, health care and social assistance, educational services, temporary help, retail, and credit intermediation.


US imports are now 50 percent greater than US exports, putting tremendous pressure on the US dollar. US dependence on imported manufactured goods has resulted in exploding trade deficits, which are growing more than five times faster than the US economy. The explosive growth of the US trade deficit since 1990 has turned $3.3 trillion of US assets over to foreigners.


Flooded with US dollars, foreigners perceive their dollar holdings to be rapidly depreciating. The dollar has fallen dramatically against the Euro, gold, and the British pound.


At an international economic meeting in Davos, Switzerland on January 26, the director of a Chinese National Economic Research Institute announced that China has lost faith in the stability of the US dollar. "Now people understand the US dollar will not stop devaluating," said Fan Gang.


One likely result of this realization is that foreigners will cease to use their trade surpluses to mop up American red ink. It makes no sense to purchase dollar assets such as Treasury bonds when they are falling in value. As foreigners continue to move out of dollars, US interest rates will rise, terminating the housing boom and wrecking family finances.


America's growing dependence on imports reflects the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and knowledge services. Every time a US firm outsources goods or services, it turns domestic production into imports. Half of the US trade deficit with China represents US offshore production for US markets.


Interest groups that benefit from outsourcing and their spokespersons who cloak themselves in free-trade rhetoric maintain that there is nothing to worry about. Outsourcing, they claim, strengthens the US economy and creates jobs. If that were true, wouldn't economic strength translate into dollar strength? If outsourcing creates US jobs, wouldn't some of those jobs be in the export sector?


Average weekly pay in the US is declining in real terms. Obviously, if outsourcing is creating jobs, they are less good jobs than the ones being outsourced. Trading better jobs for worse ones is the road to poverty, not the road to wealth.


The dismal US performance in job and pay growth is despite the most stimulative monetary and fiscal policy in my lifetime. If the lowest US interest rates in memory, tax cuts and the biggest budget deficits in US history cannot create jobs and boost pay, what can?


Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services notes that normally a 38-month old economic recovery would have raised hours paid by 11% to 14%. The 38-month old Bush recovery has raised hours paid by less than one percent!


The clowns in Washington DC imagine that they sit astride a Superpower. Absorbed in fantasies of invading countries and remaking the world in America's image, little do our deluded leaders realize that America is in the hands of our Chinese and Japanese creditors. Should either of these Asian powerhouses decide to stop mopping up America's red ink, the dollar would collapse to such an extent that it would lose its reserve currency status.


When the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, America will cease to be a superpower.


Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.
Click to expand...


So PAD, is this also a running theme in all administrations? Because I can't recall anything this like happening in recent history.


[quote name='Drocket'](and in a lot of ways, Bush Sr probably shouldn't be on the list because he took major steps to cut spending to clean up the mess that Reagan created.)[/quote]

Bush 41 didn't really have a choice, but at least he was smart enough to recognize that.

Sadly, Too-Stupid-To-Eat-A-Pretzel Bush isn't as responsible as his father. Massive deficits that will soon undermine our entire economy?!? Let's not do anything about that! PRESS ON CHRISTIAN SOLDIER!!!
 
[quote name='Drocket'] Clinton managed to afford it. So did Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson - Actually, only 3 presidents since World War 2 have managed to not afford it - Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. (and in a lot of ways, Bush Sr probably shouldn't be on the list because he took major steps to cut spending to clean up the mess that Reagan created.) Every other president since World War 2 has either broken even or paid down the national debt during his term in office. A mere 3 presidents in the past 60 years have so shaq-fued up the budget that they ran a deficit. Interesting, isn't it?[/quote]

As usual, you're wrong. I mean.... really wrong. I love how you try and slant this as the fault of no one but Reagan and Bush Sr and Jr. but.... you're wrong.

Here are the facts since 1962, as far back as the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) website lists.

Deficit (-) or Surplus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revenue/Outlay/On-Budget/SSI/Postal/Total/Public Debt
1962 99.7 106.8 -5.9 -1.3 n.a. -7.1 248.0
1963 106.6 111.3 -4.0 -0.8 n.a. -4.8 254.0
1964 112.6 118.5 -6.5 0.6 n.a. -5.9 256.8
1965 116.8 118.2 -1.6 0.2 n.a. -1.4 260.8
1966 130.8 134.5 -3.1 -0.6 n.a. -3.7 263.7
1967 148.8 157.5 -12.6 4.0 n.a. -8.6 266.6
1968 153.0 178.1 -27.7 2.6 n.a. -25.2 289.5
1969 186.9 183.6 -0.5 3.8 n.a. 3.2 278.1

1970 192.8 195.7 -8.7 5.9 n.a. -2.8 283.2
1971 187.1 210.2 -26.1 3.0 n.a. -23.0 303.0
1972 207.3 230.7 -26.1 3.1 -0.4 -23.4 322.4
1973 230.8 245.7 -15.2 0.5 -0.2 -14.9 340.9
1974 263.2 269.4 -7.2 1.8 -0.8 -6.1 343.7
1975 279.1 332.3 -54.1 2.0 -1.1 -53.2 394.7
1976 298.1 371.8 -69.4 -3.2 -1.1 -73.7 477.4
1977 355.6 409.2 -49.9 -3.9 0.2 -53.7 549.1
1978 399.6 458.7 -55.4 -4.3 0.5 -59.2 607.1
1979 463.3 504.0 -39.6 -2.0 0.9 -40.7 640.3

1980 517.1 590.9 -73.1 -1.1 0.4 -73.8 711.9
1981 599.3 678.2 -73.9 -5.0 -0.1 -79.0 789.4
1982 617.8 745.7 -120.6 -7.9 0.6 -128.0 924.6
1983 600.6 808.4 -207.7 0.2 -0.3 -207.8 1,137.3
1984 666.5 851.9 -185.3 0.3 -0.4 -185.4 1,307.0
1985 734.1 946.4 -221.5 9.4 -0.1 -212.3 1,507.3
1986 769.2 990.4 -237.9 16.7 * -221.2 1,740.6
1987 854.4 1,004.1 -168.4 19.6 -0.9 -149.7 1,889.8
1988 909.3 1,064.5 -192.3 38.8 -1.7 -155.2 2,051.6
1989 991.2 1,143.8 -205.4 52.4 0.3 -152.6 2,190.7

1990 1,032.0 1,253.1 -277.7 58.2 -1.6 -221.1 2,411.6
1991 1,055.0 1,324.3 -321.5 53.5 -1.3 -269.3 2,689.0
1992 1,091.3 1,381.6 -340.4 50.7 -0.7 -290.3 2,999.7
1993 1,154.4 1,409.5 -300.4 46.8 -1.4 -255.1 3,248.4
1994 1,258.6 1,461.9 -258.9 56.8 -1.1 -203.2 3,433.1
1995 1,351.8 1,515.8 -226.4 60.4 2.0 -164.0 3,604.4
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 -174.1 66.4 0.2 -107.5 3,734.1
1997 1,579.3 1,601.2 -103.3 81.3 * -21.9 3,772.3
1998 1,721.8 1,652.6 -30.0 99.4 -0.2 69.2 3,721.1
1999 1,827.5 1,701.9 1.9 124.7 -1.0 125.5 3,632.4

2000 2,025.2 1,789.1 86.3 151.8 -2.0 236.2 3,409.8
2001 1,991.2 1,863.0 -32.5 163.0 -2.3 128.2 3,319.6
2002 1,853.2 2,011.0 -317.5 159.0 0.7 -157.8 3,540.4
2003 1,782.3 2,159.9 -538.4 155.6 5.2 -377.6 3,913.4
2004 1,880.1 2,292.2 -567.4 151.1 4.1 -412.1 4,295.5

Three Presidents have had budget surpluses in the last 43 years. Nixon, Clinton and G.W.Bush. We've had a grand total of 5 years in the last 35 that were surpluses. So don't tell me that every President has managed to come in on budget and pay down the national debt except Reagan and the Bushes.

Because, as usual, you're wrong.

CBO Website
 
Actually, you're right because I forgot one important phrase in my original post: ignoring interest on the existing debt. Most of those negatives are actually positives if you don't count the interest of the debt that the president inherited. When you compare the growth of the debt vs. GDP, the problem becomes even more obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top