Bush to propose sharp cut in budget growth

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
linkage

Under fire from conservatives over record budget deficits in an election year, President George W. Bush will propose an effective freeze in the overall growth of government programs not connected to defense or homeland security, officials said on Thursday.



The White House cast the proposal as "the foundation" of a plan to cut the half-trillion-dollar deficit in half over the next five years, hoping to dispel doubts in some Republican circles about Bush's commitment to fiscal restraint.

In the fiscal 2005 budget he will send to Congress on Feb. 2, aides said Bush would call for limiting growth in non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending to less than 1 percent -- the lowest rate of growth since the first President Bush in fiscal 1993.

With inflation running below 2 percent, government programs subject to the new cap would face the budgetary equivalent of a freeze or cut in spending from levels set in fiscal 2004.
But the proposal would only affect about one-sixth of all federal spending, budget analysts said. Discretionary spending does not include automatic payments such as Social Security and Medicare.

About damn time.
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Isn't it funny how Bush is FINALLY getting his act together regarding domestic policy? If corporations were the ones voting, he probably wouldn't bother.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: tallest1
Isn't it funny how Bush is FINALLY getting his act together regarding domestic policy? If corporations were the ones voting, he probably wouldn't bother.

Yes, trying to work with the dems(spending more), just has not worked.
 

mfs378

Senior member
May 19, 2003
505
0
0
Isn't that lower than inflation? Yes it is! Source What a teriffic idea, I'm sure Bush put a lot of personal effort into coming up with that idea.

[Edit] I guess I should read more carefully, it says so in the article. Nevertheless, I am afraid that cuts will be in legitimate programs as opposed to the heap of corporate welfare and discretionary spending thats in the budget now. Even republicans are complaing about the bill, but I'm sure Bush is going to rubber stamp it.
 

mfs378

Senior member
May 19, 2003
505
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tallest1
Isn't it funny how Bush is FINALLY getting his act together regarding domestic policy? If corporations were the ones voting, he probably wouldn't bother.

Yes, trying to work with the dems(spending more), just has not worked.

Republicans control both houses and the white house. Does that mean anything to you?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: mfs378
Isn't that lower than inflation? Yes it is! Source What a teriffic idea, I'm sure Bush put a lot of personal effort into coming up with that idea.

[Edit] I guess I should read more carefully, it says so in the article. Nevertheless, I am afraid that cuts will be in legitimate programs as opposed to the heap of corporate welfare and discretionary spending thats in the budget now. Even republicans are complaing about the bill, but I'm sure Bush is going to rubber stamp it.

NOthing to complain about yet as he has not released this spending bill to congress. According to the article the spending freeze will not affect medicar, SS, defense or homeland security(5/6 of the budget)

Seems you need to read more.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: mfs378
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tallest1
Isn't it funny how Bush is FINALLY getting his act together regarding domestic policy? If corporations were the ones voting, he probably wouldn't bother.

Yes, trying to work with the dems(spending more), just has not worked.

Republicans control both houses and the white house. Does that mean anything to you?

How many filibusters have we seen in the last year..how many were to stop a spending bill?
 

mfs378

Senior member
May 19, 2003
505
0
0
So it was the minority party that inflated this spending bill to its rediculous proportions? If thats the case, you should be complaining about the republicans lack of competence.

Education was not listed. So there's nothing keeping it from the chopping block? Like I said, I am afraid that legitimate programs will suffer more than neccesary at the expense of other useless expenditures. We'll just have to see how it pans out.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: mfs378
So it was the minority party that inflated this spending bill to its rediculous proportions? If thats the case, you should be complaining about the republicans lack of competence.

Education was not listed. So there's nothing keeping it from the chopping block? Like I said, I am afraid that legitimate programs will suffer more than neccesary at the expense of other useless expenditures. We'll just have to see how it pans out.

I am saying both parties are too blame. Not only have the democrats no stopped any of the spending bills(and they have the power to), but they complain that the fed has not spent enough.
 

mfs378

Senior member
May 19, 2003
505
0
0
So its the democrats fault they didn't stop the runaway republicans spending spree?

You're seem a republican and you oppose these huge budget bills. I think its perfectly clear where you should lay the blame.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: mfs378
So its the democrats fault they didn't stop the runaway republicans spending spree?

You're seem a republican and you oppose these huge budget bills. I think its perfectly clear where you should lay the blame.

I am laying blame on congress/senate(both parties) and the president. There is more than enough blame to go around.
 

mfs378

Senior member
May 19, 2003
505
0
0
You certainly didn't sound like you were laying the blame equally in your post above.
Yes, trying to work with the dems(spending more), just has not worked.
Although I will agree that there are cuts to be made in spending, and that both parties should work towards them. In my perfect world. ;)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

Under fire from conservatives over record budget deficits in an election year, President George W. Bush will propose an effective freeze in the overall growth of government programs not connected to defense or homeland security, officials said on Thursday.



The White House cast the proposal as "the foundation" of a plan to cut the half-trillion-dollar deficit in half over the next five years, hoping to dispel doubts in some Republican circles about Bush's commitment to fiscal restraint.

In the fiscal 2005 budget he will send to Congress on Feb. 2, aides said Bush would call for limiting growth in non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending to less than 1 percent -- the lowest rate of growth since the first President Bush in fiscal 1993.

With inflation running below 2 percent, government programs subject to the new cap would face the budgetary equivalent of a freeze or cut in spending from levels set in fiscal 2004.
But the proposal would only affect about one-sixth of all federal spending, budget analysts said. Discretionary spending does not include automatic payments such as Social Security and Medicare.

About damn time.

Yes, it IS about damn time. I hope it actually happens though. Grassley seemed to hint it the other night but I'm not so sure everyone else will be onboard.

CkG
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: mfs378
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tallest1
Isn't it funny how Bush is FINALLY getting his act together regarding domestic policy? If corporations were the ones voting, he probably wouldn't bother.

Yes, trying to work with the dems(spending more), just has not worked.

Republicans control both houses and the white house. Does that mean anything to you?

does the fact that Bush let Kennedy help write the no child left behind bill mean anything to you?
 

mfs378

Senior member
May 19, 2003
505
0
0
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: mfs378
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tallest1
Isn't it funny how Bush is FINALLY getting his act together regarding domestic policy? If corporations were the ones voting, he probably wouldn't bother.

Yes, trying to work with the dems(spending more), just has not worked.

Republicans control both houses and the white house. Does that mean anything to you?

does the fact that Bush let Kennedy help write the no child left behind bill mean anything to you?

The no child left behind doesn't give money to the program, the budget bill does. Ask anyone to see if the program has been properly funded. The money went somewhere else.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: mfs378
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tallest1
Isn't it funny how Bush is FINALLY getting his act together regarding domestic policy? If corporations were the ones voting, he probably wouldn't bother.

Yes, trying to work with the dems(spending more), just has not worked.

Republicans control both houses and the white house. Does that mean anything to you?

How many filibusters have we seen in the last year..how many were to stop a spending bill?

How many vetos have we seen in the entire Bush admin? Bush signed every spending bill, and they wouldn't even have gotten to his desk without GOP support. Nice try blaming the Democrats, but noone left to blame.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Oh, and it's not gonna happen, unless Bush explicitly says he'll veto any legislation with over 2% growth.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: mfs378
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: mfs378
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tallest1
Isn't it funny how Bush is FINALLY getting his act together regarding domestic policy? If corporations were the ones voting, he probably wouldn't bother.

Yes, trying to work with the dems(spending more), just has not worked.

Republicans control both houses and the white house. Does that mean anything to you?

does the fact that Bush let Kennedy help write the no child left behind bill mean anything to you?

The no child left behind doesn't give money to the program, the budget bill does. Ask anyone to see if the program has been properly funded. The money went somewhere else.

36% growth in education funding since he took office. Once again, dems complaining about defecits on one hand and not enough spending on the other.

 

mfs378

Senior member
May 19, 2003
505
0
0
And who is to blame for the tax revenue shortfall? Democrats want balanced budgets. To be fair, however, so do a large number of republicans.

I am sure that Democrats would cut spending in different areas. Its a matter of priorities. Democrats want more money for education, Republicans won't cut from the already-astronmical defense budget. (close to half a trillion!!)
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
HAHA, this thread is hilarious. Instead of taking the blame, the Bush sympathizers are arguing that the democrats could've stopped THE MAJORITY from doing wrong with a flick of the wrist.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: tallest1
HAHA, this thread is hilarious. Instead of taking the blame, the Bush sympathizers are arguing that the democrats could've stopped THE MAJORITY from doing wrong with a flick of the wrist.

Meanwhile the democrats acts like the senate filibuster(designed to protect the minority) does not exist.

BOTH parties are to blame.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
So essentially freezing less than 1/5 of the US budget will address record year over year deficits? If DOD, Medicare, Medicaid, and SS are not addressed we will make little progress in actually reducing the budget deficit. That's like me telling the wife we need to work on our spending so I'm going to cut back on peanut butter but the swordfish and caviar are likely to increase.

Your title is accurate only to the extent that Bushies have presided over runaway budget growth. The current proposal does not guarantee a sharp cut in growth b/c programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and unfortunately DOD are likely to grow substantially and constitute the majority of government largesse.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
He will achieve this by executive order reversing the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.. (1848) and, I think, transferring the deed of New York to Chad and perhaps eliminating the departments of Labor, Treasury and Commerce.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
SS isn't a part of the problem, it contributes a surplus to the general fund on a regular basis. Such "debts" are a large % of the total debt, and are a big part of the push to privatize SS before it needs to have those funds back...

Tax cuts, military spending and so-called security are the Republican equivalent of Crack- they'll be running up your credit cards a little less RSN, honest... they'll be selling off national parks and monuments to satisfy their cravings before it's over...