budget cuts...

[Renegade7]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17523-2005Feb11.html

[Joe Sick]

Between these budget cuts and his social security "plan", we will finally see a backlash by the American people to Bush's policies.

Hopefully people finally realize that this administration is not working for them. Of course, I had faith in the US voters in November, too.

Remember, all those Red state voters in "Bush Country" are the main recipients of this government largesse, i.e. welfare.

So from this point, those Bush voters will either have to admit to being hypocritical (against big govt. but willing to take handouts) or they will realize that the Democratic Party represents their needs and wants better than the corporate, regressive party.

[Ignatius J.]

Well, I think it's nice that we finnally see some benefit to bush's election.

I voted for Kerry, but I bleive that many of these cuts are good ideas.

When I read the names of the programs, my heart does get jerked a little. After all, lots of this money is earmarked for poor kids. See for example the youth sports program. But then you look at the money being spent, and you have to ask yourself, is that 18 million really helping?

By the time the government spends the money on all the people who organize the dispersal of those funds, how many games of basketball are going on in a safe environment because of this?

If cuts like these help to put our country on stronger economic footing, that does more to help kids than paying a bunch of people in washington to think about how to help those kids.

I usually vote democrat, but I'm not going to cry to hard over any of these cuts. If someone gives me a really good argument that any of these programs is making a difference in the areas they are supposed to, and that that difference is worth the deficit, I'm happy to listen, but nothing in this article makes me think otherwise.

Money to help rural communities buy fire engines? I think not.

[luckydevil]

it's a start

With that said, even with the cuts.............the size of the federal government is going to get bigger

[Art]

I wish Bush was cutting government spending. Unfortunately he's not. It's going up. However, it's going up a sustainable amount and finally we have something liberals should fully embrace. They made the debt a campaign issue, so, they should be all for a budget that attempts to limit spending and cut some programs to that aim, since spending leads to deficits.

[SkinsCrunkin]

Originally posted by Art

I wish Bush was cutting government spending. Unfortunately he's not. It's going up. However, it's going up a sustainable amount and finally we have something liberals should fully embrace. They made the debt a campaign issue, so, they should be all for a budget that attempts to limit spending and cut some programs to that aim, since spending leads to deficits.

agreed, the dollar is weakening so much that we need to start cutting this defecit or if foreign investors start to pull out of american investors I think our economy could head into another recession, hopefully this will help to start balance out the budget, it's not a fix, but it's a start...

[Ghost of]

Why the hell is my mother being taxed to pay for sports programs on the FEDERAL level?

Sheesh. It's like the morons in King County that have dictated that 1 percent of any public construction project must go to art--meaning if you're spending 200 million on a facility you have to "spend" 2 million on art. Last time I checked, you don't actually have to pay artists THAT much for artwork. Why not just make the building as attractive as possible and cut out the middle man or pay some artist 70K to make a statue or something?

The first principle of government spending should be: Get yo' hands out my pockets!

ESPECIALLY on the federal level. If it's that valuable let your state pay for it after voting to approve it.

[Ignatius J.]

Art,

this liberal is embracing it, so take note. Next time you go on and on about how liberals are unwilling to make some cuts, pause for just a moment to realize that it simply is not true.

also, it might be worth noting that by putting a republican congress together with a president who forgot where he put the veto stamp, you are only asking for more stupid spending. I don't think for a second that these are all the cuts that should be made or could be made, and I bet that a republican congress would find it easier to demand frugality from a democrat than a fellow republican who just won in a landslide.

[Art]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

Art,

this liberal is embracing it, so take note. Next time you go on and on about how liberals are unwilling to make some cuts, pause for just a moment to realize that it simply is not true.

also, it might be worth noting that by putting a republican congress together with a president who forgot where he put the veto stamp, you are only asking for more stupid spending. I don't think for a second that these are all the cuts that should be made or could be made, and I bet that a republican congress would find it easier to demand frugality from a democrat than a fellow republican who just won in a landslide.

I haven't made any comment that liberals are unwilling to make some cuts. I stated that liberals made the deficit a campaign issue, so when cuts are made, they must uniformly see the need.

I think you are correct that a Republican Congress would find it easier to demand a more frugal government from a Democrat than from a Republican.

[Cskin]

They made the debt a campaign issue, so, they should be all for a budget that attempts to limit spending and cut some programs to that aim, since spending leads to deficits.

But aren't these programs being cut effect predominately democratic voters? Additionally... aren't a majority of these programs proposed by the Democratic party? Seems to me the Democrats can't publicly champion these cuts... not without some voters realizing the irony.

I also want to report a kidnapping and identity theft. The "Ignat" posting in these threads is not the "Ignat" we're most familiar with in this forum.

[Art]

Originally posted by Cskin

But aren't these programs being cut effect predominately democratic voters? Additionally... aren't a majority of these programs proposed by the Democratic party? Seems to me the Democrats can't publicly champion these cuts... not without some voters realizing the irony.

I also want to report a kidnapping and identity theft. The "Ignat" posting in these threads is not the "Ignat" we're most familiar with in this forum.

Democrats have no real choice in the matter.

They can't on one hand suggest deficit spending is a terrible thing and then rail against the only thing that can solve the problem. They have only one other choice which is to suggest we cut nothing, continue spending, and take more from the American people to support it.

Ultimately this works to the advantage of conservatives and Republicans either way it falls. Democrats have to support their rhetoric that deficit spending is bad so they have to either support limiting government spending or they have to propose higher taxes.

If they support limiting government spending it's a win for conservatives. If they come out for higher taxes it's a win for conservatives. I think liberals used the national debt as an issue because it never occurred to them Bush would actually keep spending in line. They had no reason to believe Bush was willing to keep government spending in check because he didn't do so his first term.

So the issue of national debt worked for them as they had a President unwilling to slow government spending WHILE lowering taxes. Now the President has turned the tables using their issue against them by limiting spending, which is the only way to lower debt.

If Bush is able to use this leverage the next four years, we won't have any debt at all .

[Ignatius J.]

Cskin,

I think you may have misunderstood several of my positions. I have always believed that the federal government has too many little pet programs that are better at spending money than they are at solving problems.

And art, if bush keeps spending in line I'll shout hallelujah. With a republican congress, I simply don't see it happening. These cuts don't even strike me as serious. How many liberals have you seen crying over any one of them? Sure you'll see people trying to make a name out of calling bush evil for taking away after school programs, but i think there's an acknowledgement that some cuts must be made even amongst liberals.

More importantly I think these are all programs that a republican congress should have demanded to see cut as a starting point. HEre's to hoping he cuts just a little bit deeper, before spending us into oblivion with social security transfer costs....

(see isn't that more in line with my liberal persona?)

[Art]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

Cskin,

I think you may have misunderstood several of my positions. I have always believed that the federal government has too many little pet programs that are better at spending money than they are at solving problems.

And art, if bush keeps spending in line I'll shout hallelujah. With a republican congress, I simply don't see it happening. These cuts don't even strike me as serious. How many liberals have you seen crying over any one of them? Sure you'll see people trying to make a name out of calling bush evil for taking away after school programs, but i think there's an acknowledgement that some cuts must be made even amongst liberals.

More importantly I think these are all programs that a republican congress should have demanded to see cut as a starting point. HEre's to hoping he cuts just a little bit deeper, before spending us into oblivion with social security transfer costs....

(see isn't that more in line with my liberal persona?)

As I said to you Yomar, this is exactly what liberals should be for considering the campaign rhetoric. If Bush only allows spending to rise this little each of the next four years, we may actually pay the deficit off entirely .

I agree with you that I don't see it happening consistently. But this is a legitimately fine beginning to the process. And, it's a political winner because the left made this in issue and has no way out now.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Art

If Bush is able to use this leverage the next four years, we won't have any debt at all .

...not the $7 trillion national debt, which nobody is even talking about paying off anytime soon...

Originally posted by Art

As I said to you Yomar, this is exactly what liberals should be for considering the campaign rhetoric. If Bush only allows spending to rise this little each of the next four years, we may actually pay the deficit off entirely .

I agree with you that I don't see it happening consistently. But this is a legitimately fine beginning to the process. And, it's a political winner because the left made this in issue and has no way out now.

...but yes, eliminating the $400 billion federal deficit should be feasible with reduced spending and a growing economy.

Coincidentally, Howard Dean was one of the strongest proponents of balanced budgets during the primaries, so perhaps we are likely to see fiscal responsibility as part of the Democratic platform...

[carlsbadd]

Part of the reason for some of the cuts was that there was a 40% increase in pork spending in the last approved budget. Everybody had thier fingers in the pie. It's shameless

[Cskin]

Kinda makes you wish for the line item veto.... although I see the Constitutional issues with such power.

I'm reminded of that scene in the movie "Dave" where the presidential imposter brings in his accounting buddy and they start "red inking" the federal budget. I believe if we brought in a team of accountants with no biased and the declaration to cut all that is wasteful from the federal budget.... we'd be running in a surplus in no time.

Unfortunately, that kind of tough decision making by the ****roaches in Washington isn't going to fullfill the following:

**Keep them elected to the House or Senate

**Keep their particular party affiliation in power or with the momentum to gain power

**Keep their damn hands out of our wallets and purses

**Keep them from believing they know best how to spend out money.

**Keep them from believing that the federal govt. should be involved in everything.... and that it's the federal govt.s job to take care of people.

Man... we're screwed.....:doh:

[riggins44]

The budget cuts are hitting this area. It's been printed that NASA Langley could lose up to 25% of it's workforce. Supposedly

they are concentrating on Space exporation and cutting back

on flight studies.

[luckydevil]

nm

[Larry]

Originally posted by Art (my emphasis)

They can't on one hand suggest deficit spending is a terrible thing and then rail against the only thing that can solve the problem.

But they're not railing against the only way to solve the problem. They're railing against the only method that the Republicans haven't already vetoed.

(The same kind of thing is going on with Social Security. Even Bush officials have said that the privatization plans will to nothing to "save" Social Security. What Bush has done is declare an emergency, then demand that what his buddys want must be done first, then he'll be willing to listen to solutions to the problem. (However, the only solutions he'll listen to are "cut benefits". ))

Although, I'll grant, this was a problem that needed to be delt with. And I don't see any really easy solutions. It's a safe bet that any solution would upset somebody. Cutting agricultural supports, for example, sounds to me like a step in the right direction.

[Art]

Larry,

I hate to break it to you, but the only way to avoid deficit spending is to lower spending. There is no other option. You can't spend more than you take in if you spend less than you take in. Limiting spending helps accomplish part of the goal to prevent the government from spending more than it makes.

I know you know this.

I know you know as an individual you simply can't decide to give yourself more money you don't have whenever you want something. You have to budget and plan within what you take in. The government's budget is no different. The only difference is somehow people are confused by the fact that spending causes deficits.

People, of course, being liberals, who know this is the case, yet hate to admit it is the case.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Art

As I said to you Yomar, this is exactly what liberals should be for considering the campaign rhetoric. If Bush only allows spending to rise this little each of the next four years, we may actually pay the deficit off entirely .

Seriously, read what you are saying. . . If we allow spending to rise this little, we may be able to pay off the debt?!?

We should not allow spending to rise AT ALL!!! Your fiscal congress has been on a mad spending spree and there appears tobe no stop in site. How much has our deficit increased since Bush took office? $600 Billion dollars a year, and then some.

This does not account for Iraq, this also does not count for his social security plan. By backing this meglomaniacial fool you have lost the fiscal frugality form of government.

BTW, I'm curious to see how many farmers who voted for Bush for "values" will be so gung ho when he cuts their subsidies like he is proposing. (Although I think it is just political manuvering and the Repubs will get Bush to remove the subsidies cuts. This way, they can go to their constituients and say "hey we fought for you".

While we are on budgets and deficits, where is all of the growth and supply side government wwindfall we've been hearing about for so long?

[Art]

Well, sure, Chomerics, I'm all for not allowing spending to rise at all. I'm for spending decreasing by HUGE amounts. Though the current forecast deficit is only a hair over $400 billion, not the $600 million and climbing number you've pulled from thin air, the fact is there IS a sustainable amount of growth you can allow government to have, while maintaining a surplus.

The increase in overall government spending proposed in this budget is well within that framework. So, while I'd be thrilled with an even better solution, this is, finally, a solution that can bring about success if it's maintained.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Art

Larry,

I hate to break it to you, but the only way to avoid deficit spending is to lower spending. There is no other option. You can't spend more than you take in if you spend less than you take in. Limiting spending helps accomplish part of the goal to prevent the government from spending more than it makes.

I know you know this.

Art,

I hate to break it to you, but the defecit is the difference between revenues and expendatures, and the Government (mostly Congress) has controll of both numbers.

While it certainly gan be argued, say, that allowing "Bush's" tax cuts to expire (the way Bush himself keeps budgeting) might (or might not) be desirable, it certainly can't be claimed (despite your patronizing attempts to do so) that the option doesn't exist.

A myth is still a myth, no matter how insultingly it's repeated.

I know you know this.

[Funkyalligator]

Perhaps if there was complete across the board spending cuts....perhaps say 10% on everything and then elimination of all the corrupt politicians pork we might start to achieve something.....since the Republicans took power they have been spending like drunken democrats....and here I was thinking that the Republican party stood for fiscal discipline...because the democrats certainly don't...but what a shocker...every politician brings home the pork to benefit himself....

[carlsbadd]

Originally posted by Funkyalligator

Perhaps if there was complete across the board spending cuts....perhaps say 10% on everything and then elimination of all the corrupt politicians pork we might start to achieve something.....since the Republicans took power they have been spending like drunken democrats....and here I was thinking that the Republican party stood for fiscal discipline...because the democrats certainly don't...but what a shocker...every politician brings home the pork to benefit himself....

Agree 100%