WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Bush's $2.57T Budget Plan Seeks Steep Cuts

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#1
AP

WASHINGTON - President Bush sent Congress a $2.57 trillion budget plan Monday that would boost spending on the military and homeland security but seeks spending cuts across a wide swath of other government programs. Bush's budget would reduce subsidies paid to farmers, cut health programs for poor people and veterans and trim spending on the environment and education.

Bush, who inherited a budget surplus that shifted to record deficits in his first term, wants to show Wall Street and fiscal conservatives he is serious about tackling deficits.

The plan would cut discretionary domestic spending outside national security by 0.7 percent for fiscal year 2006, in what the White House called the most austere budget proposal since the Reagan era.

"It's a budget that eliminates redundancy," Bush told reporters during a meeting with his Cabinet. "It's a lean budget."

Democrats say Bush is forcing the poor to absorb the brunt of the budget pain after giving billions of dollars of tax cuts to the rich in his first presidential term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And by "lean" he means poor little kids who go to school each morning hungry are gonna stay that way, so we can buy another bomb....

He's fucked up for the last 4 years folks, and NOW you're going to pay for it...

Hope none of you Red Staters are farmers, need health programs for poor people are veterans or give a shit about the environment or education? Good! That's a relief...

Motherfucker....
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#2
well for as much as I don't like most of his proposed budgets... I have to point out that your article is very biased... "inherited a budget surplus "... when we all know that he inherited a deficit... the surplus they speak of was a pre 9-11, pre corporate scandals and pre dot com bust, projection...
I don't like to hear that healthcare spending will be cut.. but based on the deficit statement I will have to look into what exactly they are calling a "cut"...
Environment spending cut.... well if its on BS environmental grants that have been kept afloat through the years just so the "environmentally friendly" label stays with someone... or so someone doesn't seem anti, or more anti, environment...
Education cuts... good.... IMO education is one of those things that more money isn't gonna fix... there are schools that give bad educations.. there are schools that give good educations... there are systems that work and systems that don't... more money in a bad system just makes for a more expensive bad education... pull the nail outta the tire and fix it... stop refilling the tire with air..

the article reverts back to the class warfare tactics... "tax cuts for rich" ... everyone that paid taxes got a tax cut... if everyone received a tax cut except for the people making over 'X' amount of money.. well then it would be like a penalty... how fair is it to penalize someone for making a certian amount of money... ohhh and I believe that the top 5% ($140,000/yr) pay 54% of our income taxes.. and before the tax cuts they were paying 52% of the total taxes... so they are paying a higher percentage toward a lower total burden.. lower for everyone...

found plan on Kerry's website
JK proposed:

Cut subsidies to high-income corporate farmers
hmmm... notice the language difference... AP article = poor farmers... Kerry's site = evil corporate farmers... maybe Kerry was proposing to cut the same farmers that will be affected by GWB's cut.. but since GWB is doing it... the Dems will oppose it...

Specifically, he supports an automatic across-the-board cut of all domestic discretionary programs to ensure that spending does not grow faster than inflation.
to me the plan sounds kinda big governmentish... but then again GWB is like a Democrat of 15 years ago...
 

Woodreaux

Original Dicksman
2,429
0
0
#3
I read that budget article yesterday, but I wasn't surprised. Obviously, with the economy shot, the budget needs pruning or worse problems will ensue. I will answer Dan's rhetorical question about the fairness of heavier taxes on the rich. Based on your writing, I think it's safe to assume you are intelligent enough to follow this reasonning. The upper 5% may pay over half of all our taxes, but they tie up 90% of the money in the country! When a person has such a sizable chunk of resources, the interest alone generated by that much money is astronomical. Because of the dynamics of capitolism, money has a self gravitating property, that if left unchecked will, over time end up in greater quantities in fewer hands. Non-linear tax functions are one check against this. Death taxes are another check against this. Rich Rep's hate death taxes, I hate the fact that they are as easily circumvented as they are.
Dan, I assume you bust your as ass at multiple jobs to survive. This suggests you're in below the 95% mark. My question is, "How fair is it for you to work multiple jobs to maintain your standard of living, while people making over X dollars per year can sit on their asses in luxury, off of interest?"
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
506
257
#4
Dan, the point here is that the rich won't be suffering from these cuts, but the poor will. Notice here that the budget for the military will increase (let me guess... by at least 3.8% of GDP, PNAC style) while the budget for governmental services will decrease... That is certainly not going to affect the rich..But it will obviously affect the poor. Btw, there are more people living in poverty now than 4 years ago and there are also more billionnaires than ever.

So here's a question... The budget for defense and military is somewhere around 400B$, while the second place country spends around 70-80B$.. The US already has a huge, technological army. WHY INCREASE MILITARY SPENDINGS? To defend the nation more? Or to attack more nations? Obvious answer?.
 

Captain 151

Seeped in a dry Merlot
4,261
4
0
#5
im still this much closer to moving to europe.
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#6
Rage against said:
WHY INCREASE MILITARY SPENDINGS? To defend the nation more? Or to attack more nations? Obvious answer?.
Right, why would we buy weapons for conventional warfare, when we no longer fight conventional wars?

US MILITARY COMPLEX - It's a Money Maker! On our backs...
 

gurlgonewild

Was machen Sie?
1,086
0
0
#7
thanks for MORE great news

whatever-

if Bush's plan negatively impacts my ability to finish school in any way...i'm going to be forced to broaded my horizons to include assasin, drug dealer, human smuggler, weapons dealer, or gold digger. hence beginning a trend the remaining 95% could join. policy writing has serious consequences, once, just once gov't should take into account the unforeseen.
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#8
OMG... I cannot believe that people support death taxes... support a certian amount of "tied up money" being taxed again...

my point on the whole over 50% thing is that the "rich" after GWB's tax cuts pay a higher percentage of the overalll taxes than the did prior to the tax cuts...
"How fair is it for you to work multiple jobs to maintain your standard of living, while people making over X dollars per year can sit on their asses in luxury, off of interest?"
I live in the greatest country in the world... I have every opportunity to be one of those "rich" people... some of us have less drive... settle for less and don't strive for more... I don't believe in "wealth redistribution" or "Robin Hood tactics"... how fair is it for someone with more dedication and drive, that makes more money than I do, to support someone that has settled for less... I feel that wealth redistribution only creates a dependant class of people that won't get off their asses... (I know that the class generalizations don't apply to everyone)

the point here is that the rich won't be suffering from these cuts, but the poor will
I hate this line... we can take more from the rich because they have more... and shouldn't/won't miss it... I don't feel it is right for anyone to tell someone that they have too much money... someone decides that "x" amount is more than enough... those people have higher standards of living.. they buy things that I cannot.. their bills are higher... but somehow I am able to sit back and say you have too much... gimme... it seems based in jealousy....

there are more people living in poverty now than 4 years ago and there are also more billionnaires than ever.
and there are more people than ever before too.. soo what...

WHY INCREASE MILITARY SPENDINGS? To defend the nation more?
yet you would be one of the first people to jump on their soapbox and say that the gvt underfunded the military or intel if something went wrong..
 

Woodreaux

Original Dicksman
2,429
0
0
#9
there are more people living in poverty now than 4 years ago and there are also more billionnaires than ever.
and there are more people than ever before too.. soo what...
More billionaires + more poverty = shrinking middle class. Disappearance of the middle class is historically a common precursor to really bad scenarios. I love America, too. That's why it bothers me to see it happenning here. Oh yeah, being on the shit end sucks, too.
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#10
my point was.... there are more total people... therefore it would be logical to assume that there would be more billionnaires, more poor and more middle class...
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
506
257
#11
fucking eh!!! Dan If you can't even agree that deep budget cuts will affect the poor more than it will affect the rich, you're a fucking zombie. ffs.....wow..

The population increased less than the level of poverty... Wich means the RATES have increased, not just the fucking numbers

You know it's what I meant
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#12
ohhh is that what you meant...

I don't see a problem with cutting programs that aren't working.. or aren't obtaining the results they are supposed to.. should we continue to pay for shit that hasn't worked...

and just cause he proposes the cuts doesn't mean they will pass through congress... I think his last budget he proposed 120 some cuts and like 40 went through.. <--- shooting from hip not sure of actual #s)

I believe the way that our welfare system is set up it doesn't give anyone any incentive to get off govt assistance and it creates a more populated dependant class...
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#13
DanGeo23 said:
ohhh is that what you meant...

I don't see a problem with cutting programs that aren't working.. or aren't obtaining the results they are supposed to.. should we continue to pay for shit that hasn't worked...

and just cause he proposes the cuts doesn't mean they will pass through congress... I think his last budget he proposed 120 some cuts and like 40 went through.. <--- shooting from hip not sure of actual #s)

I believe the way that our welfare system is set up it doesn't give anyone any incentive to get off govt assistance and it creates a more populated dependant class...
You have been duped again. Why don't you look at what we spend on all social programs, and compare it to the US Military budget? It's a drop in the bucket.

Bush has mis-managed the government since he walked in the door (like every other enterprise he's ever had his hands on), and to fix it, he plans to raise Military spending on conventional weapons, for wars we no longer need to fight, while he dances on the backs of the American middle class.

You must be pretty well off not to have to worry about the middle class anymore...hmmmm?
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#14
more money on a program doesn't mean that it will function better... when the government buys a $150 hammer does it make it better than a $20 hammer... no .. its just a more expensive hammer that does the same job as the other one....
more money for social programs for the most part just creates more expensive bad social programs... fix the fucking programs... money doesn't fix bad programs...
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
506
257
#15
DanGeo23 said:
ohhh is that what you meant...

I don't see a problem with cutting programs that aren't working..
Why do you assume that every program Bush wants to cut is not working? Are agriculture programs designed to help poor farmers worthless? Is it better to build more jet fighters?
 

Woodreaux

Original Dicksman
2,429
0
0
#16
When it comes to budget cuts, education is one that really worries me. I cannot speak for the other 49 states, but I know teachers in Louisiana. Some do well financially, others are struggling to raise their families. The difference between them is whether they teach at private or public schools. As education funding goes down, public school teachers' salaries go down. The common effect is the most able teachers a) take positions at private schools b) leave the state for better opportunities. Who is left to teach the public schools? A few dedicated teachers who have well paid spouses, but mostly unqualified warm bodies to fill the position. On the other hand, sufficiently increasing funding for education makes it a viable career opportunity that will attract highly qualified professionals.
Diverting funds from the next generation's education is like borrowing from a loan shark. You get a little money now, but in the long term it costs a shitload.
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#17
Rage against said:
Why do you assume that every program Bush wants to cut is not working? Are agriculture programs designed to help poor farmers worthless? Is it better to build more jet fighters?
Perhaps, he has something against young people learning new trades?, because vocational training is going to be cut from schools.

But, we are buying 79 new fucking helicopters!

It all comes down to priorities, keeping the big military contractors happy, and buying more shit we don't need is more important than taking care of the American people - who actually pay for it...