Bush wants 2.9 trillion spending request

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: nullzero
Topic Title: Bush wants 2.9 trillion spending request
Topic Summary: Has Bush gone crazy? He wants to bury our nation in debt.

That's just the Republicans way, just look at his supporters on here, they love spending the average peon citizens money.

Afterall the rich don't have to pay for it with the cuts they got from Bush.

Said the man with the yacht...

Ah but you Assume I paid a Yacht price tag eh?

Wrong, it's a 1978 I fixed up and currently converting the engines to run on propane.

Hey I live on a large lake.

Hmm well I couldnt afford a used yacht and the money to fix it up. Nor could I afford a house on a lake. Youre a rich bastard who needs to pay more taxes IMHO because you have more than me!

 

[Jeff7]

What's all this I hear about those damned tax-and-spend liberals? Now we've got no-tax-and-spend-loads neo-Cons.
I think that's a much worse idea.
It sure doesn't work for homeowners when you consistently spend more than you earn. The bank has a word associated with this practice: "foreclosure."

 

[ProfJohn]

Link

Bush projects government spending in 2008 of $2.90 trillion, a 4.9 percent increase from the $2.78 trillion in outlays the administration is projecting for this year.

That is not a bad increase at all. Compared to the 9 increases of the last few years anything that low would be an improvement.
We shall have to see what the Democrats in congress do with the budget, since they have the power to increase it or reduce it.

Also note this budget is SUPPOSE to result in a smaller deficit in 2008 than 2007 or 2006. Of course any projection more than 6 months out is a guess and figuring out what the budget will look like in the summer of 2008 during the winter of 2007 is a guess.

and for nullzero go back and look at the Clinton budgets. He cut military spending in a big way. That is where most of the budget reductions under him came from.
When Clinton took office military spending was 4.4% of our GDP, when he left office it was only 3% of GDP. That 1.4% decrease amounts to about $140 billion in 2000. And if you look at the figures without that large military cut 2000 would have been the ONLY year the budget would have balanced under Clinton.
If you look at the first year the budget was balanced, 1998, defense spending was only 3.1% of GDP. The difference between that and the 4.4% of 1993 would be like $127 billion or so, in other words the entire surplus came from defense spending.
I believe this holds true for every other surplus we had, except 2000. (At best 1999 and 2001 would have seen small surpluses.)

BTW the balanced budget is about the only good thing Clinton did IMO. So don't see this as a knock on him. Just pointing out the facts on HOW the budget was balanced.

GDP figures for any year, great resource
Size of military vs. GDP by year, another great resource

 

[Stunt]

This is disgusting...where are the fiscal conservatives?!
A government shouldn't increase spending more than GDP growth; and Bush has absolutely killed this rule of thumb.

He's fundamentally a socialist...I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

 

[nullzero]

and for nullzero go back and look at the Clinton budgets. He cut military spending in a big way. That is where most of the budget reductions under him came from.

Humm kind of like how the Republican Congress and Bush so called streamlined the military and closed the most bases then any other president.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/RL30051_010607.pdf

Looks like Mc Cain and the Republican congress were very eager to shut down many bases and to get rid of a lot of the military medical care facilities and military housing.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure,_2005

more useful info on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_realignment_and_closure

I remember several speechs by Bush for the goal of a smaller more effective high tech streamlined military, but have yet to see it... More spending on pork barrel military projects and more recruiting for ground units more tanks and an extended war in Iraq. Yet the only place they seem to cut most the spending in was the installations dedicated to the soliders and their families for example services like healthcare and housing.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

It's true, and only an uprising will ever shrink government.

Our political system gives us a choice between socialists (tax and spend) and neo-cons (cut tax and spend). However, there?s still the deficit to resolve and eventually one must stop and cut spending, or raise taxes regardless of who we?ve elected. Bush and Congress have guaranteed taxes will be raised through their unprecedented spending spree.

Cutting taxes is nice and all, it gives you a 50/50 chance of doing the right thing. Yet in the end the right thing must be done and cuts must be made, or else all you?re doing is delaying the inevitable raise in taxes. This is where we stand now, and I cannot recall a time when this country has ever done the right thing and cut spending.

what happens if a tax cut increases revenue?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

It's true, and only an uprising will ever shrink government.

Our political system gives us a choice between socialists (tax and spend) and neo-cons (cut tax and spend). However, there?s still the deficit to resolve and eventually one must stop and cut spending, or raise taxes regardless of who we?ve elected. Bush and Congress have guaranteed taxes will be raised through their unprecedented spending spree.

Cutting taxes is nice and all, it gives you a 50/50 chance of doing the right thing. Yet in the end the right thing must be done and cuts must be made, or else all you?re doing is delaying the inevitable raise in taxes. This is where we stand now, and I cannot recall a time when this country has ever done the right thing and cut spending.

what happens if a tax cut increases revenue?

If that were the case, there would be no Deficit now.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

It's true, and only an uprising will ever shrink government.

Our political system gives us a choice between socialists (tax and spend) and neo-cons (cut tax and spend). However, there?s still the deficit to resolve and eventually one must stop and cut spending, or raise taxes regardless of who we?ve elected. Bush and Congress have guaranteed taxes will be raised through their unprecedented spending spree.

Cutting taxes is nice and all, it gives you a 50/50 chance of doing the right thing. Yet in the end the right thing must be done and cuts must be made, or else all you?re doing is delaying the inevitable raise in taxes. This is where we stand now, and I cannot recall a time when this country has ever done the right thing and cut spending.

what happens if a tax cut increases revenue?

If that were the case, there would be no Deficit now.

Yeah youre right. 9/11, Katrina, and Iraq dont have an impact :roll:

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sandorski

what happens if a tax cut increases revenue?

If that were the case, there would be no Deficit now.

not necessarily. if you were in deficit beforehand or spending increased, for example.

 

[conjur]

Wow...over 20% of the ENTIRE budget is for the military-industrial complex. No wonder they are trying to keep us permanently at war. Without war this country's economy will collapse.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
This is disgusting...where are the fiscal conservatives?!
A government shouldn't increase spending more than GDP growth; and Bush has absolutely killed this rule of thumb.

He's fundamentally a socialist...I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

Now your hero is disgusting? He's been doing this since 2001.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: ntdz
$300 billion of this budget is for the iraq and afghanistan wars through 2009. $100 billion for 2007, $150 billion for 2008 and $50 billion for 2009. Still, the spending is absolutely ridiculous and needs to be toned down. Check that, it needs to be more than toned down, it needs to be cut significantly.

What? Where is the LOVE for you fearless leader? I figured in your eyes bush could never be wrong or do no good....

**EDIT**

Back to the topic. We can't afford it we need to cut ties now and be lucky to afford any programs here back at home for us... Wake up Bush, your an incompetent idiot that is out of control.

The sad part is? I really think congress will go along with this idiotic plan... REASON? If they don't then the media and every christian war monger out there will say they cut funds of the troops and blah...blah...blah.... What ya gonna do? Then Bush is off the hook since... Congress and the whole country (in his eyes) backed him... So, it's not his problem if he fails again... And you know he will...

If I were in congress I'd cut him off and the troops until the bastard can work up some sort of budget that is in check, but that will never happen.

This president is doomed for failure and will do so at any opportunity he gets....

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
This is disgusting...where are the fiscal conservatives?!
A government shouldn't increase spending more than GDP growth; and Bush has absolutely killed this rule of thumb.

He's fundamentally a socialist...I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

Now your hero is disgusting? He's been doing this since 2001.

Bush is definately not my hero...not in the least.
I agree he has been doing this since 2001...

 

[Phokus]

I think i threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Fvck bush 🙁

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Borrow and Spend! Doom! Gloom!

Swipe that national credit card! Cha-ching, baby!

So, fifty years from now, what portion of the U.S. should we sell to China when China comes seeking American land as a way of collecting on our debt under the threat of the new Chinese space-based laser death ray? I suppose we'd be in a real pickle since they'd probably require the evacuation of all the moronic Americans from the region, creating even worse overcrowding in whatever's left of the rest of the country.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Borrow and Spend! Doom! Gloom!

Swipe that national credit card! Cha-ching, baby!

So, fifty years from now, what portion of the U.S. should we sell to China when China comes seeking American land as a way of collecting on our debt under the threat of the new Chinese space-based laser death ray? I suppose we'd be in a real pickle since they'd probably require the evacuation of all the moronic Americans from the region, creating even worse overcrowding in whatever's left of the rest of the country.

I think the ranch in Texas should be put up for auction immediately... Then Washington DC should be put on the block next... Should be able to get a few trillion for the white house maybe...

I'd go for spending 2.9 Trillion on our education system in colleges to pump out top cutting computer science engineers to devlop high tech sector since we are losing our edge big time... The wars of tomorrow will be fought with small sophisticated computers to help win... If we lose we are going to lose more ways then one... and sadly we are not spending are money wisely.

Edit...

Thought I would add can you imagine what the compound interest alone on 10Trillion is gonna be? I tell you it's not gonna take 50 years. I'd say more like 10/15 years top before it sinks the US economy. I won't even account for the extra money we are adding to it every year.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Stunt
This is disgusting...where are the fiscal conservatives?!
A government shouldn't increase spending more than GDP growth; and Bush has absolutely killed this rule of thumb.

He's fundamentally a socialist...I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

The Republican party is a sham, plain and simple. They seem to think they can fool people into thinking "tax cut = smaller government".

I used to consider myself a Republican, but I haven't voted for a Republican for over 10 years, since I saw through their facade.

 

[charrison]

I bet we are looking at 3T by the time congress gets done with it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: charrison
I bet we are looking at 3T by the time congress gets done with it.

Well look at it this way, Democrats have two chances between now and 2008 to prove they can balance/control the budget. If they go above and beyond what Bush wants to spend then they will have blown chance one.

If they really want to show America that they are no longer the tax and spend party of the past then they should be working on ways to pass an even smaller budget than Bush?s.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: conjur
Wow...over 20% of the ENTIRE budget is for the military-industrial complex. No wonder they are trying to keep us permanently at war. Without war this country's economy will collapse.

taken historically, we're less than half of vietnam's peak (~9.4%) at ~4.2% of GDP. and that is far less than historical peaks such as WWII at ~37.8%.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: charrison
I bet we are looking at 3T by the time congress gets done with it.

Well look at it this way, Democrats have two chances between now and 2008 to prove they can balance/control the budget. If they go above and beyond what Bush wants to spend then they will have blown chance one.

If they really want to show America that they are no longer the tax and spend party of the past then they should be working on ways to pass an even smaller budget than Bush?s.

How are the Dems gonna pay for Bush's sh*t without raising taxes? Again, money doesn't grow on trees PJ.

 

[babylon5]

Is America going the way of USSR? Bankrupting itself by spending like no tomorrow?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur
Wow...over 20% of the ENTIRE budget is for the military-industrial complex. No wonder they are trying to keep us permanently at war. Without war this country's economy will collapse.

The other 80% goes into the Social industrial complex.

 

[blackangst1]

is Chicken Little Disease spreading like wildfire now?

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

It's true, and only an uprising will ever shrink government.

Our political system gives us a choice between socialists (tax and spend) and neo-cons (cut tax and spend). However, there?s still the deficit to resolve and eventually one must stop and cut spending, or raise taxes regardless of who we?ve elected. Bush and Congress have guaranteed taxes will be raised through their unprecedented spending spree.

Cutting taxes is nice and all, it gives you a 50/50 chance of doing the right thing. Yet in the end the right thing must be done and cuts must be made, or else all you?re doing is delaying the inevitable raise in taxes. This is where we stand now, and I cannot recall a time when this country has ever done the right thing and cut spending.

what happens if a tax cut increases revenue?

But I thought conservatives wanted a smaller govt? If it is true as you say that lower taxes means greater revenues for the govt, then you should be against this.