Quote :

"Budget highlights # DEFICITS: The plan will claim deficits in the $400 billion range for this year and next # DEFENSE: The Pentagon would get a $35 billion increase to $515 billion for core programs, about 7 percent, with war costs additional # MEDICARE AND MEDICAID: The programs will see almost $200 billion in cuts over the next five years, about three times the savings proposed last year but rejected by Congress # HEALTH: Health and Human Services Department funding would be cut by $2 billion, amounting to a 3 percent reduction # HOMELAND SECURITY: Overall, the budget for homeland security programs will increase by almost 11 percent "

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/bush.budget.ap/index.html

I really have a problem bitching about gov't funded healthcare for the poor and elderly when this money is just being reallocated to pay for Bush's war machine and the DHS Department of Civil Rights Invasion.

Seems like the president is more concerned about trying at all costs to save face in Iraq then taking care of his own people at home. Regardless of your views on medicare and medicaid any changes in the system need to be adjusted over time. Right now it is our grandmas and grandpas that are getting screwed by the system. Not to mention the future tax payers that will have to pay for the deficit.

2/4/2008 10:27:26 AM

Don't blame President Bush.

Blame a total bitch Democratic Party.

[Edited on February 4, 2008 at 10:33 AM. Reason : >.<]

2/4/2008 10:32:57 AM

yeah i blame them for taking it in the butt from bush. the republican congress fought clinton tooth and nail during the 90's

2/4/2008 10:40:30 AM

2/4/2008 10:41:47 AM

Also from the article:

Quote :

"...Democrats said that forecast was based on flawed math that only included $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 and no money after that..."

I'm going off the assumption that this is more or less true. I recognize that it may not be exact truth, but this administration has had a reputation of leaving the costs of war out of the budget.

By not providing for the wars in the budget, this seems to yeild one of two conclusions:

1) The funds aren't they're because they aren't needed: i.e. operations, men & equipment.

2) The administration is sticking its head in the sand about the war in order to have the budget balanced in a 3 year projection.

Ignoring the obvious in option 2 and the fact that the costs of these engagements have never totaled as little as 70B, Option 1 essentially concludes that the war would be over and we will have completely stood down, if there is no mention of need for allocation of funds for operations & upkeep.

So we will have been out of these places by the end of 2009.

We will have pulled out by the end of 2009.

Timetable.

"Hello, I'm a bunch of bullshit. Do you like pretty flowers?"

2/4/2008 6:35:52 PM

^typical. people want to go to battle over 70billion in war budget, but ignore over a trillon in entitlement spending. Just wow. THat is the real disaster happeing to our country, however you cant get elected telling people the truth.

2/4/2008 7:35:07 PM

wait, bush has a budget? wouldn't that imply that there was an end somewhere to the amount of money he felt like spending?

2/4/2008 7:48:06 PM

Shady accounting. It wouldn't bother me as much if he wasn't bragging that he balances the budget in out years. I can spend money on plenty of cool stuff and balance my budget if I don't pay my mortgage.

2/4/2008 9:32:11 PM

/message_topic.aspx?topic=512800

2/4/2008 9:42:31 PM

Seriously

Blame the Democratic Congress.

I've never seen a more ineffective group in power.

2/4/2008 9:48:43 PM

bush has ruined the republican party. He is far from a conservative in my book.

2/4/2008 10:00:53 PM

Quote :

"The administration is sticking its head in the sand about the war in order to have the budget balanced in a 3 year projection."

I think that the administration is simply punting to the next president. From the way it was described in NPR, it'll be up to the next guy (or gal) as to what they want to do about Iraq and Afghanistan and how they want to fund it...

Quote :

"people want to go to battle over 70billion in war budget, but ignore over a trillon in entitlement spending."

If Bush and a Republican Congress in lock step couldn't even approach the issue of Social Security and Medicare, I seriously doubt Bush and a Democratic Congress are going to make any progress in an election year. That funding is dictated by law until they can pass reform legislation.

NPR also made a good point that right now the Democrats, considering the high probability they have of taking the White House, will probably just fund the government on supplementals through 2008 until they get a more favorable person in office next year.

[Edited on February 4, 2008 at 10:11 PM. Reason : comma mistake.]

2/4/2008 10:11:17 PM

^^well considering their majority in the senate is basically non-existent and bush has threatened a veto on every bill they've tried to author, blame can be put on both sides of the aisle. i'm just amazed that the congressional republicans have managed to stay in such lock-step with such an unpopular president.

2/4/2008 10:11:54 PM

Its because Democrats make a big issue of big issues for about a week then move on.

2/4/2008 10:13:45 PM

Bush has ruined America.

If there exists a metric that shows responsibility of the government, it got worse in the last 7 years.

2/4/2008 10:15:24 PM

I don't necessarily blame bush directly; i blame his ineptitude and the shitty people under him that molded the administrations actions (Darth Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, etc)

2/4/2008 10:24:22 PM

Quote :

"I think that the administration is simply punting to the next president. From the way it was described in NPR, it'll be up to the next guy (or gal) as to what they want to do about Iraq and Afghanistan and how they want to fund it..."

Then why has the whole war been funded "off the books?"

2/4/2008 10:35:53 PM

Its not funded 'off the books'

2/4/2008 10:57:59 PM

^^^Pretty much, but don't forget Wolfowitz and Rove with respect to that list. They've had their hands in it too.

And I'm not clucking over 70 billion. I'm just asking for acknowledgement of the fucking five year old elephant in the room.





[Edited on February 4, 2008 at 11:21 PM. Reason : ^]

2/4/2008 11:20:15 PM

In case anyone hasn't seen this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-04-budget-analysis_N.htm?csp=34

I'd like to say that Bush is a fucking moron. I blame him and his officers for ruining this country.

2/5/2008 1:36:33 AM

Hey, Bush submitted the budget electronically to save trees. What else do you want?

2/5/2008 2:43:25 AM

hey, what's a $400 billion deficit when you're saving a few cents per page?

2/5/2008 2:48:03 AM

I just heard a tree scream, tree killer.

2/5/2008 2:54:42 AM