Bush budget.

[TillEulenspiegel]

President Putting 'Big' Back in Government

La Times.:
WASHINGTON — Even as President Bush proposes significant cuts in healthcare, farm subsidies and other domestic programs, his new budget makes one thing clear about the legacy of his first term in the White House: The era of big government is back.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...8feb08,0,2869032.story?coll=la-home-headlines

"Budget deficits threaten political will to tackle other Bush initiatives:
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter," Cheney reportedly said.

Now, with his new federal budget proposals, President Bush is about to test whether that's true. He projects that the deficit would shrink from $427 billion in fiscal 2005 to $207 billion in fiscal 2010 under his proposals.

Yet that's based on the questionable assumption that Congress will be more disciplined on spending than it's ever been. It also doesn't count the multi-trillion-dollar price tag that Bush envisions for overhauling Social Security and making permanent his now-expiring tax cuts"

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/10840358.htm?1
What Chaney failed to state that Regan's fiscal people state the SHORT term deficits don't matter.

The caveat here is Not only does Bush's budget provide cuts for social programs and increased spending, it actually increases the size of government. While he has "Happy Meal Sound Bites", like No child left behind and "We must support out troops in Iraq " His Budget cuts eviscerates the kids program and also cuts Veterans benefits for wounded personal including the 11,000 + that came home from Iraq.

The budget does not include the war cost including this years extended $ 80B expenditure.
Nor does the budget include the historical projections for this budget on the coming 5-6 Years fiscal outlook which traditionally been included. Nor does it include real projections for the cost of making his tax breaks permanent.Nor the real cost of SS reform. He does state vicarious numbers, but they are more mis-direction and not in the budget itself.

It's Your Money.

These are fact not sentiments.

Thoughts?

 

[Magyar]

Haven't you heard!
We have faith based sex ed
ID based science

This is the new fantasy based math.

 

[Furious]

The myth of Republican fiscal responsibility needs to die.

The longer the Republican Congress exists (since what, '94 now? Senate doesn't have anything to do with the budget.), the more I'm convinced the fiscal responsibility line is just veiled angst that Democrats were spending money in places Republicans didn't want them spent instead of spending on Republican's own bloated pet projects.

I miss the days of different branches containing different parties.

EDIT: myst != myth

 

[shecky]

We have faith based sex ed

Faith based sex ed actually got a bump, of $39 million according to Forbes:

If the budget is approved, abstinence education would get $206 million, an increase of $39 million. "This will help educate adolescents and their parents of the health risks of early sexual activity," Leavitt said.

Of course we must spend more in this area, given that divorce and abortions are up since Bush has been in office. Even if Faith based sex ed doesn't really work, we gotta do something, anything, to assuage our failure, right?

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

For what it's worth, the new budget does manage to balance out some of the costs that exist but aren't in the budget with revenues that don't exist but are in the budget (for instance, drilling in the ANWR).

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

HUH?

Either You being very satirical or completely silly.
Bilbo:" I know half of you less then i would like and like less than half of you less then You deserve"

 

[Renfield]

President Putting 'Big' Back in Government

La Times.:
WASHINGTON — Even as President Bush proposes significant cuts in healthcare, farm subsidies and other domestic programs, his new budget makes one thing clear about the legacy of his first term in the White House: The era of big government is back.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...8feb08,0,2869032.story?coll=la-home-headlines

"Budget deficits threaten political will to tackle other Bush initiatives:
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter," Cheney reportedly said.

Now, with his new federal budget proposals, President Bush is about to test whether that's true. He projects that the deficit would shrink from $427 billion in fiscal 2005 to $207 billion in fiscal 2010 under his proposals.

Yet that's based on the questionable assumption that Congress will be more disciplined on spending than it's ever been. It also doesn't count the multi-trillion-dollar price tag that Bush envisions for overhauling Social Security and making permanent his now-expiring tax cuts"

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/10840358.htm?1
What Chaney failed to state that Regan's fiscal people state the SHORT term deficits don't matter.

The caveat here is Not only does Bush's budget provide cuts for social programs and increased spending, it actually increases the size of government. While he has "Happy Meal Sound Bites", like No child left behind and "We must support out troops in Iraq " His Budget cuts eviscerates the kids program and also cuts Veterans benefits for wounded personal including the 11,000 + that came home from Iraq.

The budget does not include the war cost including this years extended $ 80B expenditure.
Nor does the budget include the historical projections for this budget on the coming 5-6 Years fiscal outlook which traditionally been included. Nor does it include real projections for the cost of making his tax breaks permanent.Nor the real cost of SS reform. He does state vicarious numbers, but they are more mis-direction and not in the budget itself.

It's Your Money.

These are fact not sentiments.

Thoughts?

Bush's SS plan is a big expense, and its benefits are hugely exagerated. As is so often the case, privatizing a government program will end up benefitting a few select companies and indivuduals, not the taxpayers or the public. Even if these private accounts end up performing well, they are not going to be enough to make a signifigant improvement in the situation. Not to mention all the administrative and other costs for running the whole complicated mess.

 

[Frank Newgent]

For what it's worth, the new budget does manage to balance out some of the costs that exist but aren't in the budget with revenues that don't exist but are in the budget.

Hmmm... that reminds me of something:

1 - a = b (Given)

2 - a*a = a*b (Left-multiply both sides by a)

3 - a*a-b*b = a*b-b*b (Subtract (b*b) from both sides)

4 - (a-b)*(a+b) = (a-b)*b (Factor (a-b) from both sides)

5 - (a+b) = b (Cancel (a-b) from both sides)

6 - (b+b) = b (Replace a with b - given, see line 1)

7 - 2b= b (Simplify (b+b) to 2b)

8 - 2 = 1


2 is equal to 1. Privatization will work.