Bring Me a Meat Axe . . . .

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Chop . . . Hack . . . Mutiate . . .

Last night I was watching a 'News Program' and they were talking about how wonderful
it was that the Bush Administration was spending around $ 160 Million to have Halliburton
build a sewage systeem for the slum part of Baghdad that is known as Sadr City.

Pity that we can't invest in our own Infrastructure like that. There are many places within our borders that could do with a portion of $ 160 Million of taxpayers money to
apply to law enforcement, bridges, education, health care, child care assistance . . .

Instead the plan is to gut the programs here at home that help U.S. Citizens, put even more out of work, and build the 52nd State in Iraq. (Puerto Rico is the 'unofficial' 51st)

That Billion a week in Iraq would go a long way for our own programs, even maybe help those who have had to pay for some of it.

<Here's the CLIP>

President Bush's budget will propose slashing grants to local law enforcement agencies and cutting spending for environmental protection, American Indian schools and home-heating aid for the poor, The Associated Press learned Saturday.
Bush molded the roughly $2.5 trillion spending plan for 2006 as a response to a string of record federal deficits, and is sends it to Congress on Monday.

The budget, the toughest he has written since entering the White House four years ago, seeks about half the increase for school districts in low-income communities he requested last year and a slight reduction for the National Park Service.

Many proposals face an unclear fate in Congress, where members of both parties are sure to defend favorite initiatives. Democrats blame the cuts on the tax reductions Bush has enacted and say that other items his budget omits ? a Social Security overhaul and costs for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ? will only make matters worse.

"What it will lead to is growing pressure for draconian cuts," Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the Senate Budget Committee's top Democrat, said Saturday. "It's inescapable, the course he's led us on, whether it's this year or next year, is for very, very heavy cuts."

Bush has said his budget will assemble federal resources for war, domestic security and other priorities and cull inefficient or redundant programs. Administration officials have said he will hold overall nondefense spending ? excepting domestic security ? to less than next year's expected 2.3% increase in inflation, meaning the programs will lose purchasing power.

"I stand with the president that we need to eliminate wasteful spending and we need to look through all the programs," said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa. "There's no question that's not the easiest thing to do in Washington."

The details obtained Saturday are the latest in a budget that will also seek savings from programs ranging from Amtrak and farmers' subsidies to Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor and disabled.

According to figures obtained by the AP, Bush would slice a $600 million grant program for local police agencies to $60 million next year. Grants to local firefighters, for which Congress provided $715 million this year, would fall to $500 million.

He would eliminate the $300 million the government gives to states for incarcerating illegal aliens who commit crimes. It's a proposal he has made in the past and one that Congress has ignored. Also gone would be assistance for police departments to improve technology and their ability to communicate with other agencies.

The Environmental Protection Agency's $8.1 billion would drop by $450 million, or about 6%, with most of the reductions coming in water programs and projects won by lawmakers for their home districts.

The Bureau of Indians Affairs would be sliced by $100 million to $2.2 billion. The reduction would come almost entirely from the agency's effort to build more schools.

The $2.2 billion program that provides low-income people ? in large part the elderly ? with home-heating aid would be cut to $2 billion. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the reduction would be "wrong-headed an inappropriate," especially with this season's jump in oil prices. White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said Bush has added hundreds of millions of dollars to the program since taking office and said his budget will provide "adequate resources to make sure we can assist low-income Americans."

The park service's budget would drop nearly 3% to $2.2 billion, largely due to a reduction in its construction account.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
I see all the debt hawks are about to disappear and start complaining about spending cuts.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Bush molded the roughly $2.5 trillion spending plan for 2006 as a response to a string of record federal deficits

Ugh...last year's budget was $2.3T

adding in the article's predicted 2.3% inflation that would peg it at $2.35...
a fan of the spending cuts...but to say that is 'a response' is a load of crap.
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
I see all the debt hawks are about to disappear and start complaining about spending cuts.

:cookie:

Ah, so this week he's donning the "phony conservative" hat? Got it.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
I see all the debt hawks are about to disappear and start complaining about spending cuts.
Um, just thought i'd point out that people have every right to complain about spending cuts and debt levels.

The other side of the equation is taxation. there are a lot of ppl that didnt care for reckless tax cuts... just because people dont want to see their governmental services get raped, doesnt mean they cant care for future sustainability :p
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
Bush molded the roughly $2.5 trillion spending plan for 2006 as a response to a string of record federal deficits

Ugh...last year's budget was $2.3T

adding in the article's predicted 2.3% inflation that would peg it at $2.35...
a fan of the spending cuts...but to say that is 'a response' is a load of crap.



Probably has to do with only part of the budget being held to the rate of inflation. Social security/medicare(about 1/2 the budget) are not going to be held subject to these restraints.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
The spending cuts should have started the day he was inaugurated, in 2001!

Government is bloated with pork and waste, much of it as apeasement to buy the voters votes.

While cutting pork out of government isn't going to necessarily balance the budget (billions), it's a start. At least get the deficit borrowing rate to slow down lower than economic growth.

After 4 years of bill signing and no Veto's, it's time for the so called conservative in the WH to show it fiscally!
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Probably has to do with only part of the budget being held to the rate of inflation. Social security/medicare(about 1/2 the budget) are not going to be held subject to these restraints.
I'm saying he can do better.

Also, im interested to see how deep cuts to spending will effect the economy...
cuts to departments will prolly put some ppl out of work...
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
spending cuts should have come before the tax cuts :)



They should have come with them..
But then you don't know how much you can cut.
Cut and wait to level just causes more debt load.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
spending cuts should have come before the tax cuts :)



They should have come with them..
But then you don't know how much you can cut.
Cut and wait to level just causes more debt load.



THey both could be applied equally.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
spending cuts should have come before the tax cuts :)



They should have come with them..
But then you don't know how much you can cut.
Cut and wait to level just causes more debt load.



THey both could be applied equally.
No they can't...say you cut spending by 10%, 10% in tax breaks is less than a doller a person.

You have to take into account the value of that money on the market.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
spending cuts should have come before the tax cuts :)



They should have come with them..
But then you don't know how much you can cut.
Cut and wait to level just causes more debt load.



Yes you can.. THere was an article awhile back about how to pay for the tax cuts, laregely by combining redundant federal programs.

THey both could be applied equally.
No they can't...say you cut spending by 10%, 10% in tax breaks is less than a doller a person.

You have to take into account the value of that money on the market.

There was article a while back about the tax cuts could largely have been paid for with improved goverment effeciency(combining redundant programs and such)
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
spending cuts should have come before the tax cuts :)



They should have come with them..
But then you don't know how much you can cut.
Cut and wait to level just causes more debt load.



Yes you can.. THere was an article awhile back about how to pay for the tax cuts, laregely by combining redundant federal programs.

THey both could be applied equally.
No they can't...say you cut spending by 10%, 10% in tax breaks is less than a doller a person.

You have to take into account the value of that money on the market.

There was article a while back about the tax cuts could largely have been paid for with improved goverment effeciency(combining redundant programs and such)

Well, I know where we could save 80 billion dollars.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,809
6,364
126
Bush could halve the Deficit easily, rescind the Tax cuts. He could even gradually rescind them over 4 years, taking much of the sting out of it.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
adding in the article's predicted 2.3% inflation that would peg it at $2.35...

Economic growth over the past year has likely pushed tax reciepts up quite a bit. Even though the press won't report it, the economic outlook has been quite good since 2003. Leaving the slow growth period, the US economy is about to break out into a full sprint.