Why is the federal budget so politicized?

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Yahoo
Sen. Mark Dayton (news, bio, voting record), a Minnesota Democrat, said the deficit grew from "the most colossal financial mismanagement that's ever been written in this country's history," and called for "a clear, direct and reliable accounting" of the war's costs.

The Senate was debating a $369 billion bill to fund the Pentagon (news - web sites) for the next fiscal year that ignores the $5 billion monthly costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Republicans said those costs will be dealt with in separate emergency spending bills, including the $60 billion measure Congress passed in April.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, said it was "sort of legislative Never Never Land" to debate "the single largest defense appropriations bill in history" that does not reflect costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and the overall war on terrorism.
On a side note who the hell is the Bush-hating base . . . House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, countered that questions on Iraq have been "incredibly overblown." He said Democrats "know that they have to attack Operation Iraqi Freedom to energize their Bush-hating base."

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, said he pressed for the war costs to be dealt with in separate emergency bills to leave more room under the tight budget limits the Republican-led Congress imposed.
Emergency spending does not count against that budget limit, although it does increase the deficit. It has been the usual method of financing major military actions.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Massachusetts Democrat, in a speech to The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, said the military operations "are creating an unsustainable financial burden at a time of exploding budget deficits."
The Rapture is surely upon us when Ted "Spend Every Dime in the Treasury" Kennedy is the voice of fiscal responsibility in the Senate.


 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,510
2
81
The budgets very important.

And yes, it's very strange to hear democrats sounding like fiscal conservatives. I wonder if the 2 parties are evolving into something different that what they currently are?
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Well someone has to be the fiscally conservative when the last 3 Republican presidents we had put us into multi-hundred billion dollar deficits.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Well someone has to be the fiscally conservative when the last 3 Republican presidents we had put us into multi-hundred billion dollar deficits.
Owned!
;)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Well someone has to be the fiscally conservative when the last 3 Republican presidents we had put us into multi-hundred billion dollar deficits.
Owned!
;)
Hardly


sMiLeYz - who is this mystery candidate who will supposedly be fiscally conservative? I don't think we've had one for quite a while and I don't see one standing up today either.

The closest we've been in recent history to being fiscally conservative is when the Freshmen of '94 caused a stir, but I think that the absence of big budget increases was a by product of them "Bucking the system" more than purposeful fiscal conservatism.

CkG
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Dude most of those Freshpeople were liars and dead weight just like the detritus they replaced. All of them signed term limit pledges and essentially all of them have renigged (sp?). Furthermore despite having uninterrupted control of the budget making House for almost a decade . . . they've shown little fiscal restraint. In fact, the worst budget years on record in the past decade have come in 2001 and 2002 with GOP control of the White House.

The Democratic House blew big arse holes in the budget (that Reagan gleefully signed) during the 80s. There's no evidence the Bush administration (and certainly the Congress) have any credibility as fiscally conservative despite the fact Bush had to sign a balanced budget in TX. Of course, TX's governorship is notably weak so he can't even claim credit for their budget either.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
The Democrats have been the only fiscally responsible party going back as far as president Kennedy, and arguably even farther than that.

What the Republican party stands for now is tax cuts, without any regard for who will pay for them in the end. They are no more likely to spend less than Democrats, actually they spend more, since their pet projects,corporate welfare and defense contracts, are a lot more expensive than the Democrat's pet project, improving the quality of life for all people, not just those who are already succeeding.

The deficit projection is now up to 455 billion, and I bet it will be a lot bigger than that. One reason ? Bush has given a $90,000 tax cut to people who make $1,000,000 a year. This despite the fact that people with this income already paid a lower percentage of their income in total taxes than people at the bottom of the ladder. Absolutely insane !

Why do the Repubicans do this ? Because it gets them elected. There are enough stupid people who are willing to throw the country in the toilet so they can get their $300 tax cut, and the Republicans know it. Never mind that the same people will have to pay back that $300 ten fold over one way or another.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
The Democrats have been the only fiscally responsible party going back as far as president Kennedy, and arguably even farther than that.
Buahahahaha!!!!....<cough> <cough>

/me falls to the floor.....will I wake again?

CkG
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Well someone has to be the fiscally conservative when the last 3 Republican presidents we had put us into multi-hundred billion dollar deficits.
Owned!
;)
Hardly


sMiLeYz - who is this mystery candidate who will supposedly be fiscally conservative? I don't think we've had one for quite a while and I don't see one standing up today either.

The closest we've been in recent history to being fiscally conservative is when the Freshmen of '94 caused a stir, but I think that the absence of big budget increases was a by product of them "Bucking the system" more than purposeful fiscal conservatism.

CkG

You do remember our last democratic president? Need I bring up the surplus? Thought not. Clinton was a believer in the pragmatic ideology of the Third Way. Liberal ends through conservative means. He was the most fiscally conservative president in the last 20 years. Not to mention his policies perpetuated an economic boom that's unlike any we've ever seen in history. He was not responsible for it, but neither did he stop it.

I dont think any of the democratic canadiates have the same colonial aspirations good ol' dubya, and everyone of them plans to get rid of the outrageous and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts. That automatically qualifies them as fiscally responsible by default at least more so than Dubya.

I dont even consider Republicans to be conservatives anymore, true conservatives are now the the Liberterians.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
There was $200 billion in the black in 2000, now its predicted to be $400 billion in the red, that's $600 billion down. Something went wrong.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
98
91
Originally posted by: Lonyo
There was $200 billion in the black in 2000, now its predicted to be $400 billion in the red, that's $600 billion down. Something went wrong.
...and it smells like texas.
 

bolinger

Member
Apr 16, 2003
132
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
The Democrats have been the only fiscally responsible party going back as far as president Kennedy, and arguably even farther than that.
Buahahahaha!!!!....<cough> <cough>

/me falls to the floor.....will I wake again?

CkG
CkG continues to elevate the level of intelligent conversation here at ATForums.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
You do remember our last democratic president? Need I bring up the surplus? Thought not. Clinton was a believer in the pragmatic ideology of the Third Way. Liberal ends through conservative means. He was the most fiscally conservative president in the last 20 years. Not to mention his policies perpetuated an economic boom that's unlike any we've ever seen in history. He was not responsible for it, but neither did he stop it.

I dont think any of the democratic canadiates have the same colonial aspirations good ol' dubya, and everyone of them plans to get rid of the outrageous and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts. That automatically qualifies them as fiscally responsible by default at least more so than Dubya.

I dont even consider Republicans to be conservatives anymore, true conservatives are now the the Liberterians.
I agree. I think "Republicans == fiscal conservatives" is a myth, and has been at least since the Reagan days. While the Republicans try to perpetuate the myth because it draws votes, there's no substance to it today. Both parties are too beholden to their big contirbutors. Since Republicans draw so much more support from corporate interests, they get even more pressure to return the largesse with our tax dollars. Add in their unlimited military spending, and their budgets are at least as bloated as the Dems -- plus the Dems are more willing to collect taxes to offset the spending.

While the Republicans may be more likely to push for tax cuts, they haven't show the discipline to match them with spending cuts.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Just some points:

- Iraq shouldn't be funded through Emergency Spending measures since it wasn't an emergency.

- Republicans are BIG spenders, no longer interested in fiscal discipline.

- We the people have failed in that we don't demand fiscal responsibility from our elected oraficials. The system has failed in that government is now unconstitutional.

- If Ross Perot was running today the resulting deforestation resulting from the creation of his charts and graphs would be catastopic.

- Anytime Shaun Hanity is questioned about the Rs no-holds-back spending he will still spew forth "Clinton. The biggest single tax hike in history!".
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Bump for good points from Jelly Baby . . . except for the Hannity line . . . who cares about FoxNews drivel?!
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
I don't care much for him, BBD.

Hannity is one of the most partisan talking heads on TV. Instead of arguing from principle, he simply attacks others. He has no interest in a meaningful exchange of ideas, only the propogation of his. Sure, that gets his show ratings but it also proves how small and weak of a man he really is.

Just trying to educate others lest they follow the same road of hate-filled, bickering arrogance. :)
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
update on the stupidity
WASHINGTON (AP) The Senate refused Wednesday to force the Bush administration to specify precisely the cost of continuing military operations in Iraq, defeating a Democratic attempt to use a defense spending bill to criticize its conduct of the war.

''It's impossible to know what the cost will be of fighting this war in advance,'' said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Dorgan said the administration knows it's spending $4 billion a month in Iraq and it makes little sense to pretend the costs do not exist.

Asked whether the White House feared the Democrats using the Iraq criticism as a political issue, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: ''The American people recognize that some are more focused on elections, and possibly even revising history or rewriting history.''
Talk about ironic . . .

The measure represents a Defense Department budget increase of a little over 1 percent for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, not counting a $62.4 billion emergency spending bill passed earlier this year to cover the cost of war in Iraq.

Likewise, the 2004 bill does not include additional money to support the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which probably will be financed by another emergency spending bill.
That's like reporting to the IRS that your income increased 1% but your boss gave you a 18% annual bonus.

But it's not all bad news . . .
The bill also blocks funds for the Terrorism Information Awareness program, a Bush surveillance initiative to cull records for evidence of terrorist activity. The administration said the provision will ''deny an important potential tool in the war on terrorism.''


 

ASK THE COMMUNITY