Title: Bush Submits New Budget
Description: Big one at that
Deltasix - February 5, 2007 03:50 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
Bush submits $2.9 trillion budget
US President George W Bush has submitted a $2.9 trillion (£1.5 trillion) budget to Congress including $700bn in new military spending.
Much of the money is earmarked for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 2008 budget also sets out plans to curb domestic spending, including $66bn savings over five years from Medicare.
It is the first budget Mr Bush has presented to a Congress dominated by Democrats, who have been strong critics of his fiscal policies.
'Priorities'
If congress did approve the request, the US would have spent $661.9bn on combat in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war began, the administration said.
Mr Bush's proposed savings, including $12bn from reducing eligibility to Medicaid - a health program for children and the poor - are likely to arouse ire from many Democrats.
"My formula for a balanced budget reflects the priorities of our country at this moment in its history, protecting the homeland and fighting terrorism, keeping the economy strong with low taxes and keeping spending under control," Mr Bush said in a statement.
He predicted a deficit in the year to October 1 2007 of $244bn and said the country could be in a surplus by 2012.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a Democrat, was sceptical of the projections.
"The president's budget is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality, and continues to move America in the wrong direction," he said.
"This administration has the worst fiscal record in history and this budget does nothing to change that."
Now that the budget has been presented, it will be debated by Congress at length, and is likely to face many changes.
This Federal budget covers spending from 1 October 2008; but in many past years, Congress has failed to reach agreement on the budget before that date. |
What are your thoughts?
Morpheus - February 6, 2007 01:09 PM (GMT)
Oh come on, THIS MAN IS FRIKIN DELUDED. This makes me seriously angry.
A bit of research indicates that "defense" spending, not including the war, will be $480 billion. Think about it - $480 billion. A 60-something % increase. Add the cost of the war (about $100 billion) and you are above half a trillion dollars. PER YEAR! That is one crapload of money.
And then he says, "Wait! I'm going to cut off $12 billion of Medicaid, and $66 billion over five years!" STOP THE PRESSES! Oh My God! He Cut Off Funding! :wacko:
I could probably discuss this more, but I don't have the stomach to do so right now.
RancerDS - February 7, 2007 09:15 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Morpheus @ Feb 6 2007, 08:09 AM) |
| Oh come on, THIS MAN IS FRIKIN DELUDED. This makes me seriously angry. |
Wow. Never seen you so worked up, Morph.
Yes, hearing some of the little interesting tidbits of what the proposed cuts are in order to spend the money elswhere -- will drive the blood pressure up dramatically. To me, it looks like irresponsible governing. And with Dubya having no more personal gains in satisfying the masses will choose instead to promote his own agendas to resurrect any chance of success in "fixing" Iraq... just so he could say he was right in the first place. Where most will probably then wonder... right about what, exactly!?!?
RockabillyRabbit - February 8, 2007 06:44 AM (GMT)
He is such an idiot. Why on Earth would he put that much more funding into the war? He doesn't even know exactly why we are there. Hell, who really knows exactly why we are there?
Deltasix - February 9, 2007 12:17 AM (GMT)
I don't really think the problem is why we are there anymore. Its been a few years now, we can really shift the discussion a bit, chiefly to how to get out.
But thats another topic ;)
Morpheus - February 9, 2007 01:59 AM (GMT)
Yeah, today in class my history teacher pointed out his proposed cuts in $20 weekly grocery bags to about 400,000 needy families. That's a total of $416 million. Heck, that much money, might even pay for a few hours of our presence in Iraq! What a brilliant idea! Stop distributing much-needed food aid to our own citizens, so that we can pay for a few more hours in Iraq (which no one wants any more, anyway).
Reflecting on some of these stupid ideas, I realize the following: these proposals stand no chance of passing through a Democratic Congress (heck, I'd even say a Republican Congress wouldn't approve). This is Karl Rove or some other "White House shadows / who hide behind closed doors" (to quote Neil Young) attempting to claim the mantle of being anti-big-government. When Democrats protest the budget deficit, Bush's team will point back and say, "WE made useful bugdet-cutting proposals. But YOU insisted on keeping your wasteful social programs". Ugh. Politics as usual, I guess. :no:
