Republicans are digging their own grave.

[extra]

If I were in power, my budget solution would eliminate the war on drugs and bring the department of defense back into the defense not offense business.

Budget problem solved.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: extra
If I were in power, my budget solution would eliminate the war on drugs and bring the department of defense back into the defense not offense business.

Budget problem solved.

That easy, eh? Why didn't anyone else think of doing this?


:shocked:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Wasn't there another country that spent everything it had on defense at the expense of all of it's social programs while accumulating massive defecits in the 1980s? I wonder how that worked out for that other country and it's people?

Actually, we spend more on social programs such as SS, medicare, and welfare than we do on defense.

Really? Proof? I didn't double-check their math, but the chart I saw showed Defense as 51% of the proposed budget, and that does NOT include the inevitable additional appropriations for Iraq. That makes Defense bigger than everything else put together. We also spend more on war than the next 25 countries combined.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: extra
If I were in power, my budget solution would eliminate the war on drugs and bring the department of defense back into the defense not offense business.

Budget problem solved.

That easy, eh? Why didn't anyone else think of doing this?


:shocked:

Aside from whoever dare do it being strung up and burned in effigy by every defense contractor in business (Halliburton being first in line)???

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dullard
For more of my thoughts, see my P&N 2007 budget thread.

Originally posted by: charrison
This is only a reduction in growth, not a cut. I am sure the same is true for education.

141 programs are proposed to get significant cuts and/or being eliminated. Eliminating a program is not "only a reduction in growth". Forty two of those terminated programs are in education. I'll present some examples.

Program: 2006 budget, 2007 budget
Total outlays for all programs: $83.9B, $64.5B
[*]Safe and Drug Free Schools Programs: $569M, $216M
[*]TRIO Upward Bound: $311M, $0
[*]TRIO Talent Search: $145M, $0
[*]GEAR UP: $303M, $0
[*]Perkins Loans Cancellations (for teachers in areas of greatest need, 20% can be cancelled each year): $65M, $0
[*]Federal Direct Student Loans: $4,791M, $63M
[*]Federal Family Education Loans: $18,245M, $5,340M

Cutting things may be good. I cannot comment on all the programs since I don't know their details. But I do know that up until now, ANYONE who wanted to go to college could afford to go to school with the student loans. Say goodbye to that era. That will have a drastic impact on many poor/lower middle class children. They may no longer have any ability to go to college and get out of their welfare status.

I think your numbers are bit misleading on the student loan programs. The "cuts" occur over a period of 5 years, not one year as you are suggesting. Also the student loan volume will not be reduced only the amount amount of interest the fed is going to subsidize.

I'm sure you'd be rationalizing cuts in helping students go to college if a Democrat were president. :roll:

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: charrison
I think your numbers are bit misleading on the student loan programs. The "cuts" occur over a period of 5 years, not one year as you are suggesting. Also the student loan volume will not be reduced only the amount amount of interest the fed is going to subsidize.

You are really on a roll in this thread, charrison. First you claim that education programs were probably not going to receive funding cuts - which is clearly false. Now you claim that Bush's own budget plan is incorrect in that it doesn't match Bush's own budget plan.

Numbers straight from Bush himself. Can you point out where I was incorrect with my post? Are you just living in lala land?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: charrison
I think your numbers are bit misleading on the student loan programs. The "cuts" occur over a period of 5 years, not one year as you are suggesting. Also the student loan volume will not be reduced only the amount amount of interest the fed is going to subsidize.

You are really on a roll in this thread, charrison. First you claim that education programs were probably not going to receive funding cuts - which is clearly false. Now you claim that Bush's own budget plan is incorrect in that it doesn't match Bush's own budget plan.

Numbers straight from Bush himself. Can you point out where I was incorrect with my post? Are you just living in lala land?

Yes I can be wrong from time to time. It happens, however most cuts are more often than not reductions in spending increases. A wrong assumption on my part.

I also read several articles before posting that talking about the saving over a 5 year period. It appears I was workign with bad/confusing data.

That all being said, I at this point need more information on the cuts themselves and how the supposed improvements to the loan program affect the money available for students. If more money is making it to the student and less the lendors this is a good thing. However we need more data.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: charrison
Yes I can be wrong from time to time.

That all being said, I at this point need more information on the cuts themselves and how the supposed improvements to the loan program affect the money available for students. If more money is making it to the student and less the lendors this is a good thing. However we need more data.

I bow down to you. Most people ignore me when I point out facts. Thank you for having the guts to say that. :beer:

Now I can agree with you. Often times we don't have enough facts. Like I said above, I don't know much about many of those programs, and cuts are needed, so I haven't passed judgement on most of the cuts.

As for student loans, the current situation is fuc&ed up. Places like Nelnet are borrowing money at low rates (by claiming to have been a student in the early 1990s) and loaning it back to current students at high rates. That needs to be fixed. However, I think the proposals go too far. Fixed rate student loans are ending (if I read correctly). At the time when interest rates going up, forcing students to get variable interest rates will put enormous strain on these students who need the aid the most. I personally would not have ended the fixed rate loans.