Full Version: Federal Spending
Elements of this debate came up on the thread regarding SCHIP. Since wider budget arguments were getting that thread off-topic, I decided to start this one.
Last Tuesday (11-13-2007) in an Indiana speech, George W. Bush made a speech in Indian. He lambasted the Democratic congress for proposing to spend $22-billion more than his budget called for.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20071113-7.html
On Friday (11-15-2007) Washington Post writer Eugene Robinson countered that the Bush administration did not seem to think “government can do good for people.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21883074/
Note: Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post was incorrectly identified in the MSNBC transcript as Eugene Washington.
Questions for debate:
1. Is Bush accurate in accusing Congress of acting “acting like a teenager with a credit card”?
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush’s six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?
3. Is Eugene Robinson correct in accusing Bush of not believing “that government can do good for people”?
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
1. Is Bush accurate in accusing Congress of acting “acting like a teenager with a credit card”?
Bush’s juvenile remarks comparing Congress to “a teenager with a credit” are “cute,” highly partisan and counterproductive. It’s like he’s saying, if I don’t get my way, I’m stomping out of the sandbox. It’s what we’ve come to expect – a hardheaded, pigheaded man, who would rather fight than work out compromises. This is exactly the kind of mindset that has us mired in a never ending, bankrupting, military decimating war in Iraq.
After six years when his veto pen was apparently hiding under his desk with those WMD, it has resurfaced as the last gasp of a president – with approval ratings in the 30s for month after month, Click Here and an ever approaching end of term that will sweep him to the sidelines to be surgically dissected by the scalpels of historians – who still wants to be relevant. He still wants to be important and the veto is about his only weapon.
Since vetoing the SCHIP bill, Bush vetoed the entire budget for a large chunk of federal programs.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20071113-6.html
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush’s six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?
I don’t think there is much doubt. An apt analogy would be Bush:hypocrisy::dogs:fleas. The return of the veto pen, after being the Prodigal Son for six years, is a pretty hefty indication.
3. Is Eugene Robinson correct in accusing Bush of not believing “that government can do good for people”?
This does seem to hit the nail on the head. Bush talks big and delivers little. What has happened to all the promises Bush made about rebuilding New Orleans?
Here’s an example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20976953/
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
With bridges falling down in Minnesota and New Orleans still partially in shambles, we have to strike a balance, something that does not seem to interest George W. Bush.
RED DEVIL from another thread
You are correct, RED DEVIL in writing that defense is a “constitutional mandate.” Your use of the word “alter of socialism” remark is a buzz word emotional appeal.
Where we disagree is on Iraq. I do not believe that the Iraqi war is part of the national defense. In fact, I think you can make a case that its costs in terms of lives, treasury and gutting of the military are contrary to defending the nation – contrary to national interests.
I agree with CR from another thread. It kind of puts things in perspective.
Last Tuesday (11-13-2007) in an Indiana speech, George W. Bush made a speech in Indian. He lambasted the Democratic congress for proposing to spend $22-billion more than his budget called for.
QUOTE(George W. Bush)
Congress now sitting in Washington holds this philosophy. The majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it's acting like a teenager with a new credit card. This year alone, the leadership in Congress has proposed to spend $22 billion more than my budget provides. Now, some of them claim that's not really much of a difference -- the scary part is they seem to mean it. Over five years, their proposed spending spree adds up to an extra $205 billion. Put another way, that's about $1,300 in higher spending every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every year for the next five years.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20071113-7.html
On Friday (11-15-2007) Washington Post writer Eugene Robinson countered that the Bush administration did not seem to think “government can do good for people.”
QUOTE
EUGENE ROBINSON: I think this is an administration that, at some fundamental level, does not believe in government. Because, remember, at the same time, we had the drunken sailor spending, we have tax cuts left and right, particularly for the wealthiest Americans. But, nonetheless, tax cuts robbing the nation‘s coffers of moneys that would go to pay for say a $800 billion war. I think the reason is – I just don‘t think George Bush fundamentally believes that government can do good for people so, you know, why does it need the money? Let‘s just spend it on the librarian projects.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21883074/
Note: Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post was incorrectly identified in the MSNBC transcript as Eugene Washington.
Questions for debate:
1. Is Bush accurate in accusing Congress of acting “acting like a teenager with a credit card”?
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush’s six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?
3. Is Eugene Robinson correct in accusing Bush of not believing “that government can do good for people”?
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
1. Is Bush accurate in accusing Congress of acting “acting like a teenager with a credit card”?
Bush’s juvenile remarks comparing Congress to “a teenager with a credit” are “cute,” highly partisan and counterproductive. It’s like he’s saying, if I don’t get my way, I’m stomping out of the sandbox. It’s what we’ve come to expect – a hardheaded, pigheaded man, who would rather fight than work out compromises. This is exactly the kind of mindset that has us mired in a never ending, bankrupting, military decimating war in Iraq.
After six years when his veto pen was apparently hiding under his desk with those WMD, it has resurfaced as the last gasp of a president – with approval ratings in the 30s for month after month, Click Here and an ever approaching end of term that will sweep him to the sidelines to be surgically dissected by the scalpels of historians – who still wants to be relevant. He still wants to be important and the veto is about his only weapon.
Since vetoing the SCHIP bill, Bush vetoed the entire budget for a large chunk of federal programs.
QUOTE(George W. Bush)
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 3043, the "Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008."
This bill spends too much. It exceeds the reasonable and responsible levels for discretionary spending that I proposed to balance the budget by 2012.
The Congress is on a path to spend $205 billion more over the next 5 years than I requested. This puts a balanced budget in jeopardy and risks future tax increases. This year, the Congress plans to overspend my budget by $22 billion, of which $10 billion is for increases in this bill. Health care, education, job training, and other goals can be achieved without this excessive spending if the Congress sets priorities.
<snip>
I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned tax dollars. Because the legislation violates that commitment, I must veto this bill.
This bill spends too much. It exceeds the reasonable and responsible levels for discretionary spending that I proposed to balance the budget by 2012.
The Congress is on a path to spend $205 billion more over the next 5 years than I requested. This puts a balanced budget in jeopardy and risks future tax increases. This year, the Congress plans to overspend my budget by $22 billion, of which $10 billion is for increases in this bill. Health care, education, job training, and other goals can be achieved without this excessive spending if the Congress sets priorities.
<snip>
I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned tax dollars. Because the legislation violates that commitment, I must veto this bill.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20071113-6.html
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush’s six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?
I don’t think there is much doubt. An apt analogy would be Bush:hypocrisy::dogs:fleas. The return of the veto pen, after being the Prodigal Son for six years, is a pretty hefty indication.
3. Is Eugene Robinson correct in accusing Bush of not believing “that government can do good for people”?
This does seem to hit the nail on the head. Bush talks big and delivers little. What has happened to all the promises Bush made about rebuilding New Orleans?
Here’s an example:
QUOTE
The pages are a piece-by-piece inventory of everything wrecked by Hurricane Katrina — from the roof right down to the bathroom fixtures — at Alfred Lawless High School in New Orleans’ devastated Lower Ninth Ward.
But FEMA has yet to find the school is 51 percent destroyed — the clerical benchmark that must be reached before the agency will pay to completely rebuild something. And so, two years after Katrina, while the state and federal government haggle over the extent of the damage, the school lies empty, a ruin of toppled bricks, sagging roofs and missing window panes.
But FEMA has yet to find the school is 51 percent destroyed — the clerical benchmark that must be reached before the agency will pay to completely rebuild something. And so, two years after Katrina, while the state and federal government haggle over the extent of the damage, the school lies empty, a ruin of toppled bricks, sagging roofs and missing window panes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20976953/
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
With bridges falling down in Minnesota and New Orleans still partially in shambles, we have to strike a balance, something that does not seem to interest George W. Bush.
RED DEVIL from another thread
QUOTE(RED DEVIL @ Nov 14 2007, 05:05 PM) 
First, I understand that national defense is not an "option" or a "political position", but rather a constitutional "mandate". And said mandate must always be the first political "bird" to dip its beak in the federal coffers, any thing that is left over after "infrastructure" and interstate trade concerns have been meet then can be offered up to the alter of "socialism". For, without a secure country, what need is there for socialism?
You are correct, RED DEVIL in writing that defense is a “constitutional mandate.” Your use of the word “alter of socialism” remark is a buzz word emotional appeal.
Where we disagree is on Iraq. I do not believe that the Iraqi war is part of the national defense. In fact, I think you can make a case that its costs in terms of lives, treasury and gutting of the military are contrary to defending the nation – contrary to national interests.
I agree with CR from another thread. It kind of puts things in perspective.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Nov 13 2007, 04:14 PM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071113/ap_on_go_co/war_costs
Today, it was announced that the war in Iraq and Afghanistand cost 1.6 trillion dollars.
CW is complaining about 30 bucks per person- The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.
So- 30 bucks, or 20 grand- what would be the first expense YOU would cut out CW? Is it even worth worrying about?
Today, it was announced that the war in Iraq and Afghanistand cost 1.6 trillion dollars.
CW is complaining about 30 bucks per person- The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.
So- 30 bucks, or 20 grand- what would be the first expense YOU would cut out CW? Is it even worth worrying about?
1. Is Bush accurate in accusing Congress of acting “acting like a teenager with a credit card”?
So far, I'd say that this is an accurate statement. Bush has a plan for balancing the budget, the Congress is spending more than this plan allows. The upshot is that Congress does not want to balance the budget. They are spending more than they should.
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush’s six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?
Considering that we are in a war, I'd say no. He is actually just now finding his backbone. Spending has been out of control, it is still out of control. It needs to be reeled in. The budget deficit last year was $247 billion. The year before it was $315 billion. We need to keep working towards the goal of balancing the budget and then being able to pay down the debt.
3. Is Eugene Robinson correct in accusing Bush of not believing “that government can do good for people”?
Robinson is frankly being idiotic with these comments. Bush clearly believes in a non-traditional "Conservative" approach, just see his increases in Education, farm subsidies, and Medicare expansion (sorry, reform) as examples. He has been lambasted by Conservatives for these moves, as he should. But Bush is not a classical conservative, he is a "Compassionate conservative" that does indeed feel that government can help people. Robinson is way off the mark on this one.
That does not mean that Bush is in favor of every government program. He clearly is not.
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
Government's first job is security. Clearly military spending should be a priority. The Constitution does not mention many domestic programs and James Madison's (the "Father of the Constitution") famous quote regarding this should be referenced:
Every budget decision is a choice between spending the money on this program or on that program or letting the people keep their own money. Bush's tax reforms cut tax rates but INCREASED REVENUE which is the only thing that is relevant. The increase was over $250 billion more last year than in FY2005.
So far, I'd say that this is an accurate statement. Bush has a plan for balancing the budget, the Congress is spending more than this plan allows. The upshot is that Congress does not want to balance the budget. They are spending more than they should.
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush’s six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?
Considering that we are in a war, I'd say no. He is actually just now finding his backbone. Spending has been out of control, it is still out of control. It needs to be reeled in. The budget deficit last year was $247 billion. The year before it was $315 billion. We need to keep working towards the goal of balancing the budget and then being able to pay down the debt.
3. Is Eugene Robinson correct in accusing Bush of not believing “that government can do good for people”?
Robinson is frankly being idiotic with these comments. Bush clearly believes in a non-traditional "Conservative" approach, just see his increases in Education, farm subsidies, and Medicare expansion (sorry, reform) as examples. He has been lambasted by Conservatives for these moves, as he should. But Bush is not a classical conservative, he is a "Compassionate conservative" that does indeed feel that government can help people. Robinson is way off the mark on this one.
That does not mean that Bush is in favor of every government program. He clearly is not.
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
Government's first job is security. Clearly military spending should be a priority. The Constitution does not mention many domestic programs and James Madison's (the "Father of the Constitution") famous quote regarding this should be referenced:
QUOTE
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Every budget decision is a choice between spending the money on this program or on that program or letting the people keep their own money. Bush's tax reforms cut tax rates but INCREASED REVENUE which is the only thing that is relevant. The increase was over $250 billion more last year than in FY2005.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 20 2007, 02:16 PM)
Considering that we are in a war, I'd say no. He is actually just now finding his backbone. Spending has been out of control, it is still out of control. It needs to be reeled in. The budget deficit last year was $247 billion. The year before it was $315 billion. We need to keep working towards the goal of balancing the budget and then being able to pay down the debt.
Don't you find it odd that Bush has found or is "finding his backbone" just as he lost his Republican majority in both houses. This is strange timing that reeks of cynicism and hypocrisy on Bush's part, in my opinion.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 20 2007, 02:16 PM)
Robinson is frankly being idiotic with these comments. Bush clearly believes in a non-traditional "Conservative" approach, just see his increases in Education, farm subsidies, and Medicare expansion (sorry, reform) as examples. He has been lambasted by Conservatives for these moves, as he should. But Bush is not a classical conservative, he is a "Compassionate conservative" that does indeed feel that government can help people. Robinson is way off the mark on this one.
Bush once talked about "compassionate" conservatism - whatever that means. I haven't even heard anything about that lately. Compared to Bush's statement about a "teenager with a credit card," Robinson's words are profound, especially given Bush's record with a Republican congress for six years.
1. Is Bush accurate in accusing Congress of acting “acting like a teenager with a credit card”?
This has been an accurate description for the past 40 years or so. However, in the current dispute, I don't think he leaves himself much room to criticize others.
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush’s six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?
Ummm. yeah?
3. Is Eugene Robinson correct in accusing Bush of not believing “that government can do good for people”?
Absolutely not. This is the classic conservative/liberal divide. It is a difference in approach, not a difference in goals.
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
The problem is that Congress tends to ignore the limiting assumption, and doesn't assume a limited supply of revenue. Why do you think we have such huge budget deficits every single year?
Given that assumption, there are a great many issues that would need to be balanced and prioritized. There are too many issues involved to make this an either/or scenario. I would make the general statement that if we are indeed at war, then it should probably be given high priority. If its not worth making such a high priority, then it probably wasn't worth going to war over, either.
This has been an accurate description for the past 40 years or so. However, in the current dispute, I don't think he leaves himself much room to criticize others.
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush’s six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?
Ummm. yeah?
3. Is Eugene Robinson correct in accusing Bush of not believing “that government can do good for people”?
Absolutely not. This is the classic conservative/liberal divide. It is a difference in approach, not a difference in goals.
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
The problem is that Congress tends to ignore the limiting assumption, and doesn't assume a limited supply of revenue. Why do you think we have such huge budget deficits every single year?
Given that assumption, there are a great many issues that would need to be balanced and prioritized. There are too many issues involved to make this an either/or scenario. I would make the general statement that if we are indeed at war, then it should probably be given high priority. If its not worth making such a high priority, then it probably wasn't worth going to war over, either.
1. Is Bush accurate in accusing Congress of acting “acting like a teenager with a credit card”?
Well, yes! Bush offered a budget to live within but the new Democratic majority created their own budget that was $$22 billions higher than his budget. How could this be, well the word "assume" (butt NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***-out of-u & me) comes into play, the democratic assumption was that they would budget based on tax of the Alternative Minimum Tax projected for revenue. They did this with an assumption that they would remove that AMT from the budget and replace it with a tax increase to replace it, they did this knowing that there was no way possible with their thin majority that they could see their budget become reality. So, if you spend $22 billion you don't have and have PayGo rules you are spending like a teenager with a credit card.
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush’s six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?No, there were many reason from natural disaster to war to justify most of the debt incurred.
3. Is Eugene Robinson correct in accusing Bush of not believing “that government can do good for people”?Not really because Bush would like to support spending for social programs but would like to do it within "his budget". I watched the famous Senator from Oklahoma stand on the floor and argue that a federal government agency that rated federal programs rated x number of numerous programs as being unproductive or unable to offer a mission statement of reason for existence justifying their continued funding. He insisted these programs should be ended and the funds allocated be moved to the "new spending" the Democrats desired leaving the cost of government null. When they refused he offered an amendment that these negatively rated agencies be funded 10% less and that mandatory hearings be held for each so they could justify why the agency could continue to be funded in the future. Again, the Democrats refused!
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?War of course since that is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Social programs are considered discretionary spending for a reason and mandatory programs funding are likewise named for a reason as outlined in the constitution. Domestic spending is discretionary spending based on availability of excess revenue to support "nice to have" spending.
Well, yes! Bush offered a budget to live within but the new Democratic majority created their own budget that was $$22 billions higher than his budget. How could this be, well the word "assume" (butt NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***-out of-u & me) comes into play, the democratic assumption was that they would budget based on tax of the Alternative Minimum Tax projected for revenue. They did this with an assumption that they would remove that AMT from the budget and replace it with a tax increase to replace it, they did this knowing that there was no way possible with their thin majority that they could see their budget become reality. So, if you spend $22 billion you don't have and have PayGo rules you are spending like a teenager with a credit card.
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush’s six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?No, there were many reason from natural disaster to war to justify most of the debt incurred.
3. Is Eugene Robinson correct in accusing Bush of not believing “that government can do good for people”?Not really because Bush would like to support spending for social programs but would like to do it within "his budget". I watched the famous Senator from Oklahoma stand on the floor and argue that a federal government agency that rated federal programs rated x number of numerous programs as being unproductive or unable to offer a mission statement of reason for existence justifying their continued funding. He insisted these programs should be ended and the funds allocated be moved to the "new spending" the Democrats desired leaving the cost of government null. When they refused he offered an amendment that these negatively rated agencies be funded 10% less and that mandatory hearings be held for each so they could justify why the agency could continue to be funded in the future. Again, the Democrats refused!
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?War of course since that is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Social programs are considered discretionary spending for a reason and mandatory programs funding are likewise named for a reason as outlined in the constitution. Domestic spending is discretionary spending based on availability of excess revenue to support "nice to have" spending.
Questions for debate:
Bush said that he approved Republican bills that me the “top line” agreed on limits. Obviously the war spending cannot be limited. Dems pass all limits and pour on the pork SPEND SPEND SPEND. - Next coeme TAX TAX TAX.
I don’t believe it either. No Dem ever saw a big fat expensive “government” program they didn’t like and this is what we have to fear. Not just one time pork for “bridges to nowhere” but increased entitlements and the expansion of bureaucracies.
Spending on the war is a security requirement. The domestic programs have been getting lots of funds and the “pork” is overflowing. Anyone who says government should spend more is imo nuts.
QUOTE
1. Is Bush accurate in accusing Congress of acting “acting like a teenager with a credit card”?
Yes the pork is now overwhelming and disgusting. Bo "balenced budget" with the Dems.QUOTE
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush’s six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?
Bush said that he approved Republican bills that me the “top line” agreed on limits. Obviously the war spending cannot be limited. Dems pass all limits and pour on the pork SPEND SPEND SPEND. - Next coeme TAX TAX TAX.
QUOTE
3. Is Eugene Robinson correct in accusing Bush of not believing “that government can do good for people”?
I don’t believe it either. No Dem ever saw a big fat expensive “government” program they didn’t like and this is what we have to fear. Not just one time pork for “bridges to nowhere” but increased entitlements and the expansion of bureaucracies.
QUOTE
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs
Spending on the war is a security requirement. The domestic programs have been getting lots of funds and the “pork” is overflowing. Anyone who says government should spend more is imo nuts.
QUOTE(Ted)
Bush said that he approved Republican bills that me the “top line” agreed on limits. Obviously the war spending cannot be limited. Dems pass all limits and pour on the pork SPEND SPEND SPEND. - Next come TAX TAX TAX.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Considering that we are in a war, I'd say no. He is actually just now finding his backbone. Spending has been out of control, it is still out of control. It needs to be reeled in. The budget deficit last year was $247 billion. The year before it was $315 billion. We need to keep working towards the goal of balancing the budget and then being able to pay down the debt.
Emphasis mine
How does a war justify deficit spending, rather than funding through other means, like cutting programs or taxes.
You can fund wars and be fiscally responsible, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
In which case, Bush is alot like a teenager, reaching for the credit card first without earning more or spending less on something else. The hypocrisy charge stands.
QUOTE(BecomingHuman @ Nov 20 2007, 09:44 PM)
QUOTE(Ted)
Bush said that he approved Republican bills that me the “top line” agreed on limits. Obviously the war spending cannot be limited. Dems pass all limits and pour on the pork SPEND SPEND SPEND. - Next come TAX TAX TAX.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Considering that we are in a war, I'd say no. He is actually just now finding his backbone. Spending has been out of control, it is still out of control. It needs to be reeled in. The budget deficit last year was $247 billion. The year before it was $315 billion. We need to keep working towards the goal of balancing the budget and then being able to pay down the debt.
Emphasis mine
How does a war justify deficit spending, rather than funding through other means, like cutting programs or taxes.
You can fund wars and be fiscally responsible, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
In which case, Bush is alot like a teenager, reaching for the credit card first without earning more or spending less on something else. The hypocrisy charge stands.
Ya sure. Pick some programs you would like to cut. Never happen.
But what you CAN do is not go hog wild on new or expanded programs while you are fighting a war. In a 12.5 trillion $ economy we can live with a war deficit of 200 billion a year if we have to.
QUOTE
Ya sure. Pick some programs you would like to cut. Never happen.
Are you telling me that with six years of a "fiscally responsible" Republican congress, they didn't have the power to cut a couple programs?
QUOTE
But what you CAN do is not go hog wild on new or expanded programs while you are fighting a war. In a 12.5 trillion $ economy we can live with a war deficit of 200 billion a year if we have to.
What about going hog wild with tax cuts? Is that responsible?
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush’s six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?
It’s not quite that simple Zack. First, spending started outstripping revenues as soon as Bush took office.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=sec-politics
Second, it wasn’t all conditions that created the deficits. There was adequate pork under the six years of Republican congressional rule.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/18/bush-earmarks/
It was six years under Republican rule that we did in, your all-caps-shouting “SPEND SPEND SPEND.” Instead of tax, we cut them and added to the deficit. So, again, Bush is the ultimate hypocrite when it comes to this issue.
So, yeah Bush is a - how do you spell it h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
A couple of points. First, this is assuming that the Iraq was was/is necessary. Second, discretionary spending didn’t seem to suffer when there was a war and Republicans controlled Congress as illustrated above. Again Ted “pork” has been “overflowing” ever since Bush took office.
I think you are too enamored with the Senator from Oklahoma. What do you expect from a partisan Republican other than a partisan speech?
BTW: In March of 2006, I started a thread about the son my Rep., Kay Granger, getting a plum job as the because of a $multi-million water project for Fort Worth. Republican pork with an air of nepotism?
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...&hl=Granger
Note: Fort Worth Star Telegram links in this thread no longer work.
QUOTE(Zack @ Nov 20 2007, 08:07 PM)
No, there were many reason from natural disaster to war to justify most of the debt incurred.
It’s not quite that simple Zack. First, spending started outstripping revenues as soon as Bush took office.
QUOTE
[Jim] Nussle, an eight-term congressman who left the House last year to make an unsuccessful run for governor, was named Budget Committee Chairman in 2001, at the dawn of the Bush administration. During three of his six years at the helm, Congress did not pass a budget blueprint. Meanwhile, big spending increases and huge tax cuts sent the budget spinning from a $128 billion surplus in fiscal 2001 to a $248 billion deficit in 2006, with the red ink hitting an all-time high of $413 billion in 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=sec-politics
Second, it wasn’t all conditions that created the deficits. There was adequate pork under the six years of Republican congressional rule.
QUOTE
In 2006, Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion “to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994.” In 2005, Congress inserted 15,877 pork projects into spending bills. In his weekend radio address, President Bush called on Congress to reform this earmarking process:
<snip>
Pork is a problem. But Bush should also address reform in his own administration. Bush’s earmarks are much tougher to find, often appearing “only in closely held supplements separate from the public budget books. … [A]s head of the executive branch, the president often doesn’t need earmarks: Once federal agencies get funding from Congress, his appointees are fairly free to steer sums to places, programs and vendors as the administration decides.” A few examples of Bush’s bacon:
– “While the Education Department’s budget would be cut, Mr. Bush propose[d] a 16% increase to $204 million for teaching sexual abstinence in high schools, a popular cause for social conservatives.”
<snip>
– Bush requested “$10 million for Preserve America grants for communities’ historic preservation efforts and $50 million for the Helping America’s
Youth Initiative — also among programs championed by Mrs. Bush.
<snip>
Pork is a problem. But Bush should also address reform in his own administration. Bush’s earmarks are much tougher to find, often appearing “only in closely held supplements separate from the public budget books. … [A]s head of the executive branch, the president often doesn’t need earmarks: Once federal agencies get funding from Congress, his appointees are fairly free to steer sums to places, programs and vendors as the administration decides.” A few examples of Bush’s bacon:
– “While the Education Department’s budget would be cut, Mr. Bush propose[d] a 16% increase to $204 million for teaching sexual abstinence in high schools, a popular cause for social conservatives.”
<snip>
– Bush requested “$10 million for Preserve America grants for communities’ historic preservation efforts and $50 million for the Helping America’s
Youth Initiative — also among programs championed by Mrs. Bush.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/18/bush-earmarks/
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 20 2007, 08:26 PM)
Bush said that he approved Republican bills that me the “top line” agreed on limits.
Obviously the war spending cannot be limited. Dems pass all limits and pour on the pork SPEND SPEND SPEND. [thanks for allowing us to hear you. - Next coeme [sp] TAX TAX TAX.
Obviously the war spending cannot be limited. Dems pass all limits and pour on the pork SPEND SPEND SPEND. [thanks for allowing us to hear you. - Next coeme [sp] TAX TAX TAX.
It was six years under Republican rule that we did in, your all-caps-shouting “SPEND SPEND SPEND.” Instead of tax, we cut them and added to the deficit. So, again, Bush is the ultimate hypocrite when it comes to this issue.
So, yeah Bush is a - how do you spell it h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
QUOTE(Zack @ Nov 20 2007, 08:07 PM)
War of course since that is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Social programs are considered discretionary spending for a reason and mandatory programs funding are likewise named for a reason as outlined in the constitution. Domestic spending is discretionary spending based on availability of excess revenue to support "nice to have" spending.
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 20 2007, 08:26 PM)
Spending on the war is a security requirement. The domestic programs have been getting lots of funds and the “pork” is overflowing. Anyone who says government should spend more is imo nuts.
A couple of points. First, this is assuming that the Iraq was was/is necessary. Second, discretionary spending didn’t seem to suffer when there was a war and Republicans controlled Congress as illustrated above. Again Ted “pork” has been “overflowing” ever since Bush took office.
QUOTE(Zack @ Nov 20 2007, 08:07 PM)
I watched the famous Senator from Oklahoma stand on the floor and argue that a federal government agency that rated federal programs rated x number of numerous programs as being unproductive or unable to offer a mission statement of reason for existence justifying their continued funding. He insisted these programs should be ended and the funds allocated be moved to the "new spending" the Democrats desired leaving the cost of government null. When they refused he offered an amendment that these negatively rated agencies be funded 10% less and that mandatory hearings be held for each so they could justify why the agency could continue to be funded in the future. Again, the Democrats refused!
I think you are too enamored with the Senator from Oklahoma. What do you expect from a partisan Republican other than a partisan speech?
BTW: In March of 2006, I started a thread about the son my Rep., Kay Granger, getting a plum job as the because of a $multi-million water project for Fort Worth. Republican pork with an air of nepotism?
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...&hl=Granger
Note: Fort Worth Star Telegram links in this thread no longer work.
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 20 2007, 09:26 PM)
Yes the pork is now overwhelming and disgusting.
Now?
NOW?
Ted, could you make one partisan-free post on
during your stay, or make an effort to not be as transparent? People here have longer memories than you give them credit for. Stop selling us short. I swear on my life the Freeper/Townsend/BlogsForBush hashish you pass around daily is not going to help your party. If it's any consolation your words do not have the force of divine interdiction.
Honey, Republicans asked for and got some of the biggest single-item pork projects Bush is selectively nagging Congress about:
However, much of the "pork" Boehner complained about was requested by Republicans. Aside from the "National Programs and Activities," the single biggest earmark in the Labor-HHS-Education section of the bill belongs to Sen. Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala., who won $9.3 million for the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. The second-largest was requested by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.—$8.4 million for the University of Louisville Research Foundation.
Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
I think Bush's new interest in balancing the budget has nothing to do with balancing the budget. The White House is threatening to layoff 100,000+ civilian workers if Congress doesn't pull the plug on another $50 billion "emergency supplemental" for Iraq that includes a withdrawal timeline. That's $50 billion in addition to a recent $471 billion spending bill. That's enough money to "continue military operations through mid-February, because of aprovision that lets the administration shift money to the war from other Pentagon accounts".
Bush criticized Democrats in June for pork while his budgeting office "requested 93 of the 321 earmarks" in the same bill.
Please, allegedly concerned balanced budget people. It's a game. A game to get as much military/Iraq funding as possible before a Democratic president takes over and an attempt to keep as much pork out of Democratic districts as possible to lessen the blow come 2008.
1. Is Bush accurate in accusing Congress of acting acting like a teenager with a credit card?
Sure it's accurate. The Dems got my vote in 2006 because of the promise to be fiscally responsible, and predicatably, they are now pushing for pet projects now that they have power. It would also be accurate to accuse the Republicans of behaving the same though in the 6 years prior.
Come on fellas. Non-military spending increased at a faster rate under Bush than under Clinton. Just except that the Republicans went crazy with power. Other fiscally conservative Republicans have. By defending it, you just make yourself to appear to be either A) not paying attention, or B )a complete Homer who defends a party the way an abused wife defends her deadbeat husband.
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
Try neither. That's the whole point isn't it? If you absolutely don't need it, let it go and don't make exceptions. We just can't do everything. For the specific choices though, the bottom line is that we need to end the war, but we need to do it responsibly. There is ill will from the world toward the US for what has happened so far, but to walk out on a Democratic Iraq when we're starting to turn the corner would increase the stain on our history for a long time.
Sure it's accurate. The Dems got my vote in 2006 because of the promise to be fiscally responsible, and predicatably, they are now pushing for pet projects now that they have power. It would also be accurate to accuse the Republicans of behaving the same though in the 6 years prior.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 20 2007, 03:16 PM)
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush's six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?
Considering that we are in a war, I'd say no. He is actually just now finding his backbone. Spending has been out of control, it is still out of control. It needs to be reeled in. The budget deficit last year was $247 billion. The year before it was $315 billion. We need to keep working towards the goal of balancing the budget and then being able to pay down the debt.
Considering that we are in a war, I'd say no. He is actually just now finding his backbone. Spending has been out of control, it is still out of control. It needs to be reeled in. The budget deficit last year was $247 billion. The year before it was $315 billion. We need to keep working towards the goal of balancing the budget and then being able to pay down the debt.
QUOTE(Zack @ Nov 20 2007, 09:07 PM)
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush's six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?No, there were many reason from natural disaster to war to justify most of the debt incurred.
Come on fellas. Non-military spending increased at a faster rate under Bush than under Clinton. Just except that the Republicans went crazy with power. Other fiscally conservative Republicans have. By defending it, you just make yourself to appear to be either A) not paying attention, or B )a complete Homer who defends a party the way an abused wife defends her deadbeat husband.
4. Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
Try neither. That's the whole point isn't it? If you absolutely don't need it, let it go and don't make exceptions. We just can't do everything. For the specific choices though, the bottom line is that we need to end the war, but we need to do it responsibly. There is ill will from the world toward the US for what has happened so far, but to walk out on a Democratic Iraq when we're starting to turn the corner would increase the stain on our history for a long time.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Nov 20 2007, 11:02 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 20 2007, 03:16 PM)
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush's six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?
Considering that we are in a war, I'd say no. He is actually just now finding his backbone. Spending has been out of control, it is still out of control. It needs to be reeled in. The budget deficit last year was $247 billion. The year before it was $315 billion. We need to keep working towards the goal of balancing the budget and then being able to pay down the debt.
Considering that we are in a war, I'd say no. He is actually just now finding his backbone. Spending has been out of control, it is still out of control. It needs to be reeled in. The budget deficit last year was $247 billion. The year before it was $315 billion. We need to keep working towards the goal of balancing the budget and then being able to pay down the debt.
QUOTE(Zack @ Nov 20 2007, 09:07 PM)
2. Considering deficit budgeting during Bush's six years with a Republican Congress, is the president being a hypocrite?No, there were many reason from natural disaster to war to justify most of the debt incurred.
Come on fellas. Non-military spending increased at a faster rate under Bush than under Clinton. Just except that the Republicans went crazy with power. Other fiscally conservative Republicans have. By defending it, you just make yourself to appear to be either A) not paying attention, or B )a complete Homer who defends a party the way an abused wife defends her deadbeat husband.
I believe I acknowledged in my post that Bush has been weak until recently.
Two things that irk me to no end: those that use the the phrase "tax cuts" against Bush and those that say because Bush allowed the previous Congress to spend he should let his one spend.
Tax "cuts" led to more revenue. Period, end of story. Also, the top quntile paid an even greater share, not to mention raw dollar amount, after these tax cuts for the rich.
Had spending levels remained at 18.5% of GDP (what is was when Bush entered office), we would have a surplus this year. But spending is out of control. The fact that this year's budget grows at 5% (twice the level of inflation) and the Congress wants to increase it even further should anger everybody. Stick to the budget. Congress is spending our money. I don't care if the President was asleep at veto wheel the last few years. He needs to put the brakes to this spending.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 21 2007, 10:28 AM)
Had spending levels remained at 18.5% of GDP (what is was when Bush entered office), we would have a surplus this year. But spending is out of control. The fact that this year's budget grows at 5% (twice the level of inflation) and the Congress wants to increase it even further should anger everybody. Stick to the budget. Congress is spending our money. I don't care if the President was asleep at veto wheel the last few years. He needs to put the brakes to this spending.
Why is it that people pick on relatively miniscule amount of domestic spending and ignore the 800 lb. gorilla in the room - the Iraqi war? Adequate defense is one thing, continuing this war at its current pace is another.
While we might not be able to leave over night, we could spend a lot less money by drawing down the than Bush proposes spending on domestic programs.
I'm sorry, Amlord, but I can't excuse the timing involved in Bush's finding that veto pen. It's more about continuing the war than saving money. Bush would be more than happy to "invest" what he saves in domestic spending in Iraq. es, again as throughout his presidency Bush = hypocrisy.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 21 2007, 11:28 AM)
Had spending levels remained at 18.5% of GDP (what is was when Bush entered office), we would have a surplus this year. But spending is out of control. The fact that this year's budget grows at 5% (twice the level of inflation) and the Congress wants to increase it even further should anger everybody. Stick to the budget. Congress is spending our money. I don't care if the President was asleep at veto wheel the last few years. He needs to put the brakes to this spending.
Hey, I'm with you. Better late than never. But is the timing coincidence? No. That might be the one good thing about the Democrats owning Congress. Bush is finally going after spending. The danger is that a Democrat gets the WH in '08 and then they go crazy with power. Gridlock! Gridlock! Gridlock!
BOF, the war is expensive, but temporary. And ending it wouldn't balance the budget. There are fundamental spending problems with the country that need addressing if the dollar is ever going to rebound.
QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 21 2007, 11:47 AM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 21 2007, 10:28 AM)
Had spending levels remained at 18.5% of GDP (what is was when Bush entered office), we would have a surplus this year. But spending is out of control. The fact that this year's budget grows at 5% (twice the level of inflation) and the Congress wants to increase it even further should anger everybody. Stick to the budget. Congress is spending our money. I don't care if the President was asleep at veto wheel the last few years. He needs to put the brakes to this spending.
Why is it that people pick on relatively miniscule amount of domestic spending and ignore the 800 lb. gorilla in the room - the Iraqi war? Adequate defense is one thing, continuing this war at its current pace is another.
While we might not be able to leave over night, we could spend a lot less money by drawing down the than Bush proposes spending on domestic programs.
I'm sorry, Amlord, but I can't excuse the timing involved in Bush's finding that veto pen. It's more about continuing the war than saving money. Bush would be more than happy to "invest" what he saves in domestic spending in Iraq. es, again as throughout his presidency Bush = hypocrisy.
I think you are being disingenuous. Neither party has made efforts to end the war. Ending the funding would end the war. It is within the power of Congress. In fact, the Democrats ran on this very issue and (surprise!
) failed to deliver. Yes, the President and the Republicans would play politics with the decision, but if you can't make the tough choices, don't run for office. They ran on the issue and won, why should they be afraid of ending the war?Either the deficit is a problem or it isn't. If it is, then choices need to be made. Nobody (apparently) wants to end the war, so we have to fund it. We don't have to fund every domestic pork issue (er, important local issue) that comes up.
The President has laid out a plan to balance the budget by 2012. It is a conservative plan that is well within reach. It is not within reach if we don't stop spending money like drunken Congressmen (much worse than drunken sailors!). The endless spending has to stop.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 21 2007, 01:50 PM)
I think you are being disingenuous. Neither party has made efforts to end the war. Ending the funding would end the war.
I think you are the one being disingenuous! You know full well that Democrats do not have 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster. You also know that Bush will veto any bill that does not meet his demands. So, don't throw this tired old talking point at me.
This thread is not about the war per se, but it's impact on getting federal spending under control.
Do you remember back in May, when Democrats offered funding for the war tied to a plan for orderly withdrawl from Iraq and Bush
vetoed it.http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWBT00691020070501
QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 21 2007, 04:27 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 21 2007, 01:50 PM)
I think you are being disingenuous. Neither party has made efforts to end the war. Ending the funding would end the war.
I think you are the one being disingenuous! You know full well that Democrats do not have 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster.
Hold on BOF. This isn't a filibuster type issue is it? Congress has to renew and/or approve funding for the war to continue. True that they passed a renewal with a timeline that was vetoed. They didn't have to pass a second bill without a timeline, but they did. They could have let funding run out, but they didn't.
They could pass responsible spending bills in other areas too but they don't. It's always tough sticking up for Congress, but I think that the approval rating in the teens is justified these days.
QUOTE
Ted, could you make one partisan-free post on during your stay, or make an effort to not be as transparent? People here have longer memories than you give them credit for. Stop selling us short.
I swear on my life the Freeper/Townsend/BlogsForBush hashish you pass around daily is not going to help your party. If it's any consolation your words do not have the force of divine interdiction.
Honey, Republicans asked for and got some of the biggest single-item pork projects Bush is selectively nagging Congress about:
I swear on my life the Freeper/Townsend/BlogsForBush hashish you pass around daily is not going to help your party. If it's any consolation your words do not have the force of divine interdiction.
Honey, Republicans asked for and got some of the biggest single-item pork projects Bush is selectively nagging Congress about:
Did you read this lesly? It’s the Dems that got most of the 1 Billion in earmarks. And how about the 24 billion they have loaded big port for THEIR constituents to every bill since they took the Congress. No repubs are not innocent but Dems are out to make them look sick in the spending category – as usual.
And if (heaven forbid) they get the WH they will add TAX TAX TAX to SPEND SPEND SPEND.
QUOTE
Lesly
Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
I think Bush's new interest in balancing the budget has nothing to do with balancing the budget. The White House is threatening to layoff 100,000+ civilian workers if Congress doesn't pull the plug on another $50 billion "emergency supplemental" for Iraq that includes a withdrawal timeline
Given a limited supply of revenue, which should be priority, spending on the war or on domestic programs?
I think Bush's new interest in balancing the budget has nothing to do with balancing the budget. The White House is threatening to layoff 100,000+ civilian workers if Congress doesn't pull the plug on another $50 billion "emergency supplemental" for Iraq that includes a withdrawal timeline
You cannot just move money around in the Pentagon as the Dems say. They should lay off people to stop this stupid Dem tactic to defund the war.
QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 21 2007, 04:27 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 21 2007, 01:50 PM)
I think you are being disingenuous. Neither party has made efforts to end the war. Ending the funding would end the war.
I think you are the one being disingenuous! You know full well that Democrats do not have 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster. You also know that Bush will veto any bill that does not meet his demands. So, don't throw this tired old talking point at me.
This thread is not about the war per se, but it's impact on getting federal spending under control.
Do you remember back in May, when Democrats offered funding for the war tied to a plan for orderly withdrawl from Iraq and Bush
vetoed it.http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWBT00691020070501
Congress approves spending. Congress is specifically charged with raising armies:
QUOTE(Article 1 Section 8)
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Congress could pocket veto this war by refusing to fund it.
The President cannot operate the military in a foreign country for more than sixty days without Congressional approval. The War Powers Act. Again, Congress's approval.
Bush has no power to conduct war. He cannot spend money unless the Congress gives it to him. I realize there are very real political reasons for the Democrats to play both sides of the fence on this one. Don't denigrate my integrity just because you don't understand the facts. As I said, neither party has made any concrete effort to end the Iraq War. It is well within the power of either party via different methods.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 26 2007, 02:02 PM)
Congress could pocket veto this war by refusing to fund it.
If one thinks the best strategy is to end the war pronto, then congress could stop funding. The president would continue the war until currently available funds run out. Then Republicans would attack Democrats for not "funding the troops."
Democrats are not going to fall into your trap Amlord. They will continue to tie funding bills to an attempt to gradually wind down the war.
It's more complex than your post indicates. I think you know that, but nice talking points, anyway.
QUOTE(AmLord)
The President has laid out a plan to balance the budget by 2012. It is a conservative plan that is well within reach. It is not within reach if we don't stop spending money like drunken Congressmen (much worse than drunken sailors!). The endless spending has to stop.
The scary thing is that getting a balanced budget is just the start. We need to run a surplus of $250 billion for more than 25 years in order to pay off the debt...all while governmental obligations will be on a massive upswing with Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and the prescription drug plan. We will be paying for the spending foolishness of the past several decades for at least the next century....but nobody seems to care.
FWIW...we already have a word for the people in Congress that think the deficit doesn't matter. We call them 'idiots'. Everyone knows that you can't continue to spend more than you make without bad things happening. Any 5th grader knows that. Clearly, our Congresspeople are NOT smarter than a 5th grader.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 26 2007, 02:24 PM)
all while governmental obligations will be on a massive upswing with Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and the prescription drug plan. We will be paying for the spending foolishness of the past several decades for at least the next century....but nobody seems to care.
I'm glad you brought this up Hobbes. Entitlements, especially Medicare, are the 800 lb. gorillas in the room. Congress exceeding Bush budget is penny ante in comparison.
QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 26 2007, 03:33 PM)
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 26 2007, 02:24 PM)
all while governmental obligations will be on a massive upswing with Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and the prescription drug plan. We will be paying for the spending foolishness of the past several decades for at least the next century....but nobody seems to care.
I'm glad you brought this up Hobbes. Entitlements, especially Medicare, are the 800 lb. gorillas in the room. Congress exceeding Bush budget is penny ante in comparison.
Ya right – except of course when they seek to expand entitlements like the CHIP. Then we can look forward to it doing nothing but grow into a monster of inefficiency and fraud. like Medicare.
But hey they are Dems acting as such -spend, spend, spend.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.