Cutting the budget by making it worse! Er, wait..

[KoihimeNakamura]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020400493.html?hpid=topnews

The sections that got me were:

But, bloated in part by the $150 billion stimulus plan Bush is expecting Congress to pass in the coming weeks, the red ink of 2008 would rival the nominal dollar record of $412.7 billion in 2004. Bush's budget office projects that the deficit will stay at $407 billion in 2009 before falling sharply, then reaching a surplus in 2012.

But, bloated in part by the $150 billion stimulus plan Bush is expecting Congress to pass in the coming weeks, the red ink of 2008 would rival the nominal dollar record of $412.7 billion in 2004. Bush's budget office projects that the deficit will stay at $407 billion in 2009 before falling sharply, then reaching a surplus in 2012.

(And of course, the end)

Under the plan, a $301 million program that trains 4,700 pediatricians and pediatric sub-specialists at children's teaching hospitals also would be eliminated, at a time when pediatric sub-specialties, such as rheumatology and pulmonology, face critical shortages.

"The request to eliminate funding to train the doctors that care for kids comes on the heels of the president's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program," said Lawrence McAndrews, president and CEO of the National Association of Children's Hospitals. "I don't think the president could be any clearer about his intentions towards children's health care. 'Wrong' doesn't begin to describe his actions."

(I'll try to look at the budget itself later.)

 

[Beerina]

But, bloated in part by the $150 billion stimulus plan Bush is expecting Congress to pass in the coming weeks, the red ink of 2008 would rival the nominal dollar record of $412.7 billion in 2004. Bush's budget office projects that the deficit will stay at $407 billion in 2009 before falling sharply, then reaching a surplus in 2012.

This is a lie. When excess comes in, government spends it all, then a little more, because that buys votes. No self-respecting congressman is going to leave some money unspent.

Unless he's predicting an Internet-boom like bubble that outstrips the greed of Congress to spend, but I'm doubting that.

So in other words, it's the historical statement that we'll toodle along with the current big deficit, then see sharp reductions and even a surplus -- after he conveniently leaves office. This was Clinton's state, too, before the unexpected Internet boom. "Ah, well. Deficits as far as the eye can see, but in 2015 or so...look out baby!"

 

[Solitaire]

This is a lie. When excess comes in, government spends it all, then a little more, because that buys votes. No self-respecting congressman is going to leave some money unspent.

Unless he's predicting an Internet-boom like bubble that outstrips the greed of Congress to spend, but I'm doubting that.

So in other words, it's the historical statement that we'll toodle along with the current big deficit, then see sharp reductions and even a surplus -- after he conveniently leaves office. This was Clinton's state, too, before the unexpected Internet boom. "Ah, well. Deficits as far as the eye can see, but in 2015 or so...look out baby!"

And I think the opposite.

There are plenty of congressional districts where there is only one name on the ballot, yet they still spend the money.

Clinton did in fact cause the boom in the economy by cutting government borrowing. When the government stops borrowing money that money has to go somewhere.

 

[PAC]

This is a lie. When excess comes in, government spends it all, then a little more, because that buys votes. No self-respecting congressman is going to leave some money unspent.

Unless he's predicting an Internet-boom like bubble that outstrips the greed of Congress to spend, but I'm doubting that.

So in other words, it's the historical statement that we'll toodle along with the current big deficit, then see sharp reductions and even a surplus -- after he conveniently leaves office. This was Clinton's state, too, before the unexpected Internet boom. "Ah, well. Deficits as far as the eye can see, but in 2015 or so...look out baby!"

Tell me about 2015. Is this the anticipated date of the social security
catastrophy?

 

[Solitaire]

Tell me about 2015.
Is this the anticipated date of the social security catastrophy?

Hm. Or is it 2017, 2050, 2036, 2041, and 2039.

It's the pyramid scheme that perpetually runs out of money when the second coming of christ finally happens.

 

[WildCat]

Hm. Or is it 2017, 2050, 2036, 2041, and 2039.

It's the pyramid scheme that perpetually runs out of money when the second coming of christ finally happens.

It'll never run out of money. It will just pay out less and less per person, while taxing workers more and more.

Other pyramid schemes fall apart long before this happens because participation isn't compulsory.