Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BushBudget '08

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BushBudget '08

    The Bush administration announced its $3.1 trillion budget earlier this week, of which $518 billion would be allocated to the Pentagon. I watched the main White House press conference/presentation as well as one at the DHHS (Health and Human Services), and have read a few summaries. I'm hoping that someone out there can explain how this is to be intepreted as anything other than a giant middle finger to 90% or more of the American taxpaying public.

    The budget is not even expected to be picked up by the Congress, having no change of passage. The senior republican senator on the budget committee, Judd Gregg called it "almost a pro-forma excercise" and said "I don't even think they worked very hard at it." It drives the federal deficit within $3 billion of record levels (a record set in 2004, with $413 billion). It cuts, as promised, 151 'unecessary' federal programs, most of which have to do with the poor and 47 of which fall under the department of education. All of these cuts only yield a savings of $18 billion, however, which makes one wonder their true necessity. How much did it even cost to come up with and draft this budget?

    Bush calls it a "good, solid budget." How can it be if it takes four more years to even balance - and that's only accomplished by assuming domestic spending (homeland security, anyone?) remains the same through 2013. I'd say you have a better chance of finding WMD's in Iraq.

    I think we should cut just one program, and fast - the White House. It's a waste of time and a waste of money.

    Here's the budget:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/

    Here's the Times' article on it, which is accurate and has useful graphical analysis:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/wa...=budget&st=nyt

    And a look at military spending at its highest since WWII
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/wa...=1&oref=slogin

    Being at war should never be the sole reason for increases in military spending, nor should losing a war. This dramatic increase might be worthwhile if there was an indication that military action during Bush's tenure was paying dividends, but it hasn't, and isn't. Mike McConnell (the director of national intelligence) recently testified that Al Qaeda is also improving what he called “the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.” He also echoed something that some of us had been saying all along - “The focus of America’s military forces and intelligence resources were mistakenly shifted,” he said, “from delivering a decisive blow against Al Qaeda, which is the enemy.” How many more mistakes are we willing to make, and for how long?

    Testimony:
    http://intelligence.senate.gov/080205/mcconnell.pdf

  • #2
    Re: BushBudget '08

    Originally posted by AMosely View Post
    The Bush administration announced its $3.1 trillion budget earlier this week, of which $518 billion would be allocated to the Pentagon. I watched the main White House press conference/presentation as well as one at the DHHS (Health and Human Services), and have read a few summaries. I'm hoping that someone out there can explain how this is to be intepreted as anything other than a giant middle finger to 90% or more of the American taxpaying public.

    The budget is not even expected to be picked up by the Congress, having no change of passage. The senior republican senator on the budget committee, Judd Gregg called it "almost a pro-forma excercise" and said "I don't even think they worked very hard at it." It drives the federal deficit within $3 billion of record levels (a record set in 2004, with $413 billion). It cuts, as promised, 151 'unecessary' federal programs, most of which have to do with the poor and 47 of which fall under the department of education. All of these cuts only yield a savings of $18 billion, however, which makes one wonder their true necessity. How much did it even cost to come up with and draft this budget?

    Bush calls it a "good, solid budget." How can it be if it takes four more years to even balance - and that's only accomplished by assuming domestic spending (homeland security, anyone?) remains the same through 2013. I'd say you have a better chance of finding WMD's in Iraq.

    I think we should cut just one program, and fast - the White House. It's a waste of time and a waste of money.

    Here's the budget:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/

    Here's the Times' article on it, which is accurate and has useful graphical analysis:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/wa...=budget&st=nyt

    And a look at military spending at its highest since WWII
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/wa...=1&oref=slogin

    Being at war should never be the sole reason for increases in military spending, nor should losing a war. This dramatic increase might be worthwhile if there was an indication that military action during Bush's tenure was paying dividends, but it hasn't, and isn't. Mike McConnell (the director of national intelligence) recently testified that Al Qaeda is also improving what he called “the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.” He also echoed something that some of us had been saying all along - “The focus of America’s military forces and intelligence resources were mistakenly shifted,” he said, “from delivering a decisive blow against Al Qaeda, which is the enemy.” How many more mistakes are we willing to make, and for how long?

    Testimony:
    http://intelligence.senate.gov/080205/mcconnell.pdf
    Ye.

    Off with its head.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: BushBudget '08

      Remember that the deficit is not the debt. The deficit is this year's growth of the debt.

      http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/

      The flag-colored disk is the Federal budget. Note the green disk in the background made of greenbacks. That's the debt.

      Other graphs:

      http://www.federalbudget.com/

      http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...Book/index.cfm

      http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
      Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

      snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

      Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

      Comment

      Connect

      Collapse

      TeamSpeak 3 Server

      Collapse

      Advertisement

      Collapse

      Twitter Feed

      Collapse

      Working...
      X