• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush looking at freezing domestic spending

BBond

Diamond Member
Don't worry, the estimated $100 billion requested for Iraq next year won't be cut...

Bush looking at freezing domestic spending

Friday, December 17, 2004 Posted: 12:47 PM EST (1747 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House is telling federal agencies to expect lean budgets next year, with congressional aides and lobbyists saying President Bush appears ready to propose freezing or even slightly cutting overall domestic spending.

Targeted would be all annually approved programs except for defense and domestic security.

Excluding those two would leave a part of the budget the administration estimates will total $388 billion for the fiscal year that began October 1. Also excluded are automatically made payments like Social Security and interest on the federal debt.

Bush's stringent approach comes as record federal deficits that hit $413 billion last year hinder his ability to pay for overhauling Social Security and extending his tax cuts. He also has tied the budget shortfalls to the weakening dollar, and pledged to reduce red ink to help prop up the currency.

At his White House economic conference on Thursday, Bush said he made "good progress" in holding the growth of non-defense, non-homeland-security programs this year to about 1 percent.

"What I'm saying is we're going to submit a tough budget," he said. "And I look forward to working with Congress on the tough budget."

The president is still making final decisions about the $2.5 trillion budget for 2006 he will propose in February.

But House and Senate aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said cuts appeared destined for such programs as housing, grants for community development, purchases of new equipment for the Federal Aviation Administration, and Army Corps of Engineers water projects.

Even the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, an administration favorite, was facing an increase of just 1 percent, pending appeals to the White House by outgoing NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, a lobbyist said.

The zero-sum game that is federal budgeting means that if spending for next year is held flat, for every dollar increase that administration favorites like education or veterans receive, another dollar must be cut elsewhere.

Even a program receiving the same as this year would lose purchasing power due to inflation, now running about 3 percent annually.

Bush's spending blueprint would be among the toughest for domestic programs since President Reagan's budgets of the 1980s.

Overall domestic spending has grown every year but three since 1987 -- in 1995 and 1996, when Republicans first recaptured Congress, and in 2000, immediately after a one-time influx of U.S. aid to help poor and debtor countries.

Even as domestic spending growth has slowed, overall expenditures including defense and domestic security continue to climb, largely due to the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congress approved $87.5 billion for those wars in fall 2003 and $25 billion more last spring, and Bush is expected to request another $75 billion to $100 billion early in 2005.

As word of Bush's still-evolving plans for domestic spending has seeped out, it has cheered conservative Republicans. They spent much of Bush's first term criticizing him for letting spending grow too rapidly and pressuring congressional leaders to try clamping down on spending.

Excluding homeland security and emergencies like hurricanes, domestic spending has grown by 27 percent since Bush took office in 2001.

"I really do believe that this White House gets it," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, a leading House conservative.

Last February, Bush proposed a 0.5 percent increase for domestic programs, which Congress eventually doubled. Advocates of cutting spending are hoping for better results next year, since November's elections will bring more conservatives to the House and Senate for the new Congress.

"They've run out of excuses," said Stephen Slivinski, budget director of the conservative-leaning Cato Institute. "They can't blame anyone else."

Still, Democrats and many moderate Republicans are certain to fight for their priorities when Congress begins translating Bush' budget proposal to actual spending legislation next year.

"This tells you the administration's priority is tax cuts over fiscal responsibility and providing central services to the American people," said Thomas Kahn, Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee.

Last May, the White House budget office distributed a memo to federal agencies warning them to anticipate an overall domestic spending cut of about 0.7 percent next year. At the time, White House officials called the document an early step in the budget process.

"The budget process is still under way," White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said Thursday. He said the administration still intends to cut the deficit in half in five years, and the next budget "will reflect our commitment to stay on that path."

 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
No surprise here, is there? Not to me anyway. We need to sacrafice more to free the poor Iraqi's.



If spending is frozen, i dont see how you are sacraficing more.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
No surprise here, is there? Not to me anyway. We need to sacrafice more to free the poor Iraqi's.



If spending is frozen, i dont see how you are sacraficing more.

deteoriation of existing infrastructure needs repair. Freezing spending won't help that.
 
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
No surprise here, is there? Not to me anyway. We need to sacrafice more to free the poor Iraqi's.



If spending is frozen, i dont see how you are sacraficing more.

deteoriation of existing infrastructure needs repair. Freezing spending won't help that.



So you support higher budgets and larger deficits then?
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
No surprise here, is there? Not to me anyway. We need to sacrafice more to free the poor Iraqi's.



If spending is frozen, i dont see how you are sacraficing more.

deteoriation of existing infrastructure needs repair. Freezing spending won't help that.



So you support higher budgets and larger deficits then?

We don't have to, Bush already has.

 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
No surprise here, is there? Not to me anyway. We need to sacrafice more to free the poor Iraqi's.



If spending is frozen, i dont see how you are sacraficing more.

deteoriation of existing infrastructure needs repair. Freezing spending won't help that.



So you support higher budgets and larger deficits then?

We don't have to, Bush already has.



WHich is why he is going to attempt to freeze the budget? I am confused. Is he spending too much or not enough?
 
Domestic spending is tiny compared to the military machine and entitlements. Unjust wars causing billions of un-necessary spending. Wants to cut SS but increases Medicare spending. The man hasn't found a spending bill he wouldn't sign....

I'm not optimistic that he'll not sign them now.

Oh, and Iraq debt, which is flowing faster and faster, doesn't count.

Blah!
 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Engineer
Unjust wars


Now we know for sure where you stand.....

I've never changed my position on that one....and never will.

People here bitch and moan about spending and taxation on domestic stuff, but oh boy....their boy starts a war and everyone of the good ole boys jump on the bandwagon and doesn't give a sh!t about how much we spend....even bragging about all of the wonderful paradise that we're building over there. Well I say fvck Iraq and the middle east. Build our own goddamn alternative energy source (now, before later) factories (or whatever needs to be done). Hell, I'll pay $10 a gallon for good ole made in the USA energy vs the fvcking Iraq oil.

Oh, and the war was unjust....and a fvcking waste!
 
Yo know what this means, more of the middle class squeeze coming.
And fed gov doing less, forcing States to carry more of the burden.
And thus, more property tax hikes, sales tax hikes, service cuts in YOUR State!

At least I didnt vote for this guy... Those of you that did? Enjoy!
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Engineer
Unjust wars


Now we know for sure where you stand.....

I've never changed my position on that one....and never will.

People here bitch and moan about spending and taxation on domestic stuff, but oh boy....their boy starts a war and everyone of the good ole boys jump on the bandwagon and doesn't give a sh!t about how much we spend....even bragging about all of the wonderful paradise that we're building over there. Well I say fvck Iraq and the middle east. Build our own goddamn alternative energy source (now, before later) factories (or whatever needs to be done). Hell, I'll pay $10 a gallon for good ole made in the USA energy vs the fvcking Iraq oil.

Oh, and the war was unjust....and a fvcking waste!


I had questions about Iraq, also, but never Afghanistan. You, I think, are among company, but the first liberal nutcase that I have heard, stating publically, and freely, that our action in Afghanistan is unjust.

Also, if I may ask, the people that: "People here bitch and moan about spending and taxation on domestic stuff"

Who are they?
 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Engineer
Unjust wars


Now we know for sure where you stand.....

I've never changed my position on that one....and never will.

People here bitch and moan about spending and taxation on domestic stuff, but oh boy....their boy starts a war and everyone of the good ole boys jump on the bandwagon and doesn't give a sh!t about how much we spend....even bragging about all of the wonderful paradise that we're building over there. Well I say fvck Iraq and the middle east. Build our own goddamn alternative energy source (now, before later) factories (or whatever needs to be done). Hell, I'll pay $10 a gallon for good ole made in the USA energy vs the fvcking Iraq oil.

Oh, and the war was unjust....and a fvcking waste!


I had questions about Iraq, also, but never Afghanistan. You, I think, are among company, but the first liberal nutcase that I have heard, stating publically, and freely, that our action in Afghanistan is unjust.

Also, if I may ask, the people that: "People here bitch and moan about spending and taxation on domestic stuff"

Who are they?

I never said Afghanistan. Iraq only.

 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
No surprise here, is there? Not to me anyway. We need to sacrafice more to free the poor Iraqi's.



If spending is frozen, i dont see how you are sacraficing more.

deteoriation of existing infrastructure needs repair. Freezing spending won't help that.



So you support higher budgets and larger deficits then?

We don't have to, Bush already has.



WHich is why he is going to attempt to freeze the budget? I am confused. Is he spending too much or not enough?

You're confused because Bush's economic policy is confused. First destroy the budget through irresponsible tax cuts, then force draconian cuts in government spending to get rid of the record deficit you created. All while throwing away hundreds of billions of dollars on an unnecessary, fraudulent, unprovoked war.

It's very easy to see where Bush's priorities are. And they aren't with the American people.

 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Engineer
Unjust wars


Now we know for sure where you stand.....

I've never changed my position on that one....and never will.

People here bitch and moan about spending and taxation on domestic stuff, but oh boy....their boy starts a war and everyone of the good ole boys jump on the bandwagon and doesn't give a sh!t about how much we spend....even bragging about all of the wonderful paradise that we're building over there. Well I say fvck Iraq and the middle east. Build our own goddamn alternative energy source (now, before later) factories (or whatever needs to be done). Hell, I'll pay $10 a gallon for good ole made in the USA energy vs the fvcking Iraq oil.

Oh, and the war was unjust....and a fvcking waste!


I had questions about Iraq, also, but never Afghanistan. You, I think, are among company, but the first liberal nutcase that I have heard, stating publically, and freely, that our action in Afghanistan is unjust.

Also, if I may ask, the people that: "People here bitch and moan about spending and taxation on domestic stuff"

Who are they?

I never said Afghanistan. Iraq only.
No, you said "wars", but thats okay, now who are they?

 
"What I'm saying is we're going to submit a tough budget," he said. "And I look forward to working with Congress on the tough budget."

The president is still making final decisions about the $2.5 trillion budget for 2006 he will propose in February.

Oh yeah, $2.5 trillion is a REAL tough budget. People actually believe this bullsh!t?!! Anyone who does is a complete moron. Ah the wonders of demokracy.
 
Tough budget, yeh, if you're not among the top 1% who got ~50% of the Bush taxcuts, or among the military pork contractor industry, or the recipient of various energy porkbarrel benefits, or part of the Homeland security scam... or Red State agribusiness recipients of outrageous farm subsidies...

Right now, we spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined, but Dubya wants to freeze domestic spending.... let the growing tide of debt maintenance, inflation and dollar devaluation eat the rest of us alive. But we'll be safe from the terrarists and the ee-vil saddam, praise jebus...
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Tough budget, yeh, if you're not among the top 1% who got ~50% of the Bush taxcuts, or among the military pork contractor industry, or the recipient of various energy porkbarrel benefits, or part of the Homeland security scam... or Red State agribusiness recipients of outrageous farm subsidies...

Right now, we spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined, but Dubya wants to freeze domestic spending.... let the growing tide of debt maintenance, inflation and dollar devaluation eat the rest of us alive. But we'll be safe from the terrarists and the ee-vil saddam, praise jebus...

Okay, Jhhnn. If I made $200,000.00 taxable income in 2003 and 2004, what was my tax burden for each year?

 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Tough budget, yeh, if you're not among the top 1% who got ~50% of the Bush taxcuts, or among the military pork contractor industry, or the recipient of various energy porkbarrel benefits, or part of the Homeland security scam... or Red State agribusiness recipients of outrageous farm subsidies...

Right now, we spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined, but Dubya wants to freeze domestic spending.... let the growing tide of debt maintenance, inflation and dollar devaluation eat the rest of us alive. But we'll be safe from the terrarists and the ee-vil saddam, praise jebus...

Okay, Jhhnn. If I made $200,000.00 taxable income in 2003 and 2004, what was my tax burden for each year?

Far less than it was before Bush emptied the treasury into your pocket.

 
For married filing seperately 2003 $76,000.00

---------------------------------2004 $70,000.00


Who should get a tax cut Jhhnn????
 
You're obviously including something beyond federal income taxes in those figures, Ozoned...

But you bring up an interesting point, nonetheless, namely that folks whose incomes are huge pay a lower % in federal income taxes than those in the upper 5%-

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in400h.pdf

Not that it matters, all you care about is yourself, right?



 
Shows how little you really know about it, ozoned. You're referring only to the top marginal rate, on any amount above $159550. The actual taxes for a person filing married/separate no dependents on AGI of $200K for 2004 would have been $57321.50, from here-

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

That's all as wages, salaries, tips, no deductions, nada... something anybody in that income bracket would have to be a fool to do...

The figures from Taxfoundation.org are accurate, given that they're about as antitax as anybody who approaches rationality... The big breaks for those at the top come from reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains, anyway.
 
Back
Top