DescentBB

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html

Incredible cuts.

Cuts to police, cuts to firefighters.

Cuts to Native Americans (cuts in funding for their schools).

Doesn't Bush realize that fighting terrorism is as much an issue for the local law enforcement as it is for our military?

hmm..no cuts or curtails in IRS spending (Which costs an unbelievable amount of money in fraudulent leins and general red tape), no cuts in government employees, no cuts in the amount of power usable by corporations.

It's obvious who's side Bush is on.

as long as there are no cuts in the CIAs budget we are gravy... because that is who is running things. now let's play music!

One thing that's interesting to note: these cuts are not "cuts" as we would normally think of them.

The spending will still increase, it's just that congress came up with a budget that had an increase in spending greater than the president's alotted increase in spending, and thus the president is yelled at for "cutting" the revenue to these agencies, which, in reality, are still receiving a hefty increase in $$.

They are cuts.

Absolute value means nothing when planning budgetry considerations. Rising costs, inflation, COLA type issues need to be considered when assigning budget amounts. As far as I can tell, these proposals do not jive with these issues.

The consequence: less money in real value. Less money = cuts.

Besides, if Bush is really the crusader of terror, why would he leave terror-fighting apparati in want?

Testiculese wrote:hmm..no cuts or curtails in IRS spending (Which costs an unbelievable amount of money in fraudulent leins and general red tape), no cuts in government employees, no cuts in the amount of power usable by corporations.

It's obvious who's side Bush is on.

The Illuminati, of course.

Viralphrame wrote:
The Illuminati, of course.

heh.
you must be a child not to see this.

that's why i was baiting kuf to get off his computer and make some music. or at least smoke me up.

;p

kufyit wrote:They are cuts.

Absolute value means nothing when planning budgetry considerations. Rising costs, inflation, COLA type issues need to be considered when assigning budget amounts....

Fair enough but to continue to judge Bush's proposed budget fairly, and I assume you don't want to selectively apply the 'fairness filter' to spin it in a partisan way, you have to judge it's merits by examining the bottom line not just listing a bunch of people helping programs that are taking a hit.

His budget "cuts" some of the police oriented grants *but* he also increases some law enforcement programs, he cuts some healthcare oriented programs but he also creates healthcare centers in every low income county in the country...and on and on and on...

The bottom line is because of the runaway spending he and every other politician has been engaged in we find ourselves in need of budget cuts so if you accept the fact that cuts are the right choice *any* proposed budget that *anyone* could offer will include cutting something that someone thinks shouldn't be cut.

If you want to just pick one or two things he cuts and one or two things he doesn't cut you can say "Hey, look, he doesn't care about the poor he only cares about the military..."

In reality he's trying to do away with the deadwood and increase funding the most immediate concerns as he see's them while ending up with an overall reduction in spending. On the grand scale of things he's doing what needs to be done and no one will ever do that and not take away a free lunch or a tax credit from someone.

What would really be great is if there was a law that said anytime the federal budget runs in debt there is an automatic across the board cut of say 10 or 15%. Everything, social, military, education, etc. gets cut drastically if you ever spend too much as they have been doing.
So they can fight over who's pork gets trimmed the most and play their little partisan name calling demagoguing games but the bottom line is they are *all* trimmed drastically to get things back within the margins of fiscal responsibility.
Who knows they might actually learn to restrain themselves to avoid that trigger...and if not it kicks in and the increases stop anyway.

I think your post is sensible and accurate Will.

Will Robinson wrote: What would really be great is if there was a law that said anytime the federal budget runs in debt there is an automatic across the board cut of say 10 or 15%. Everything, social, military, education, etc. gets cut drastically if you ever spend too much as they have been doing.

That be called a Balanced Budget Amendment...state governments have em, the fed. govt. doesn't.

The Article wrote:...Bush has said his budget will assemble federal resources for war, domestic security and other priorities and cull inefficient or redundant programs...

so this means drug war bye bye? pff, we wish.

Cops! I didn't even see your last post until now!

I have been moving into my new apartment all day. We should defintely hang, dang...next weekend? I need some guitar lessons.

I'd love Birds' opinion on this.

I'm not supposed to have one myself, but you guys know what I'm thinking

Ask, and you shall receive...

Scott,

I understand your heartfelt concern for those that will be adversely affected by the proposed cuts. I have to say however, that I support the cuts.

Here is why:

In a perfect world we would be increasing spending on all those things. If I were president, we would have the money needed because we wouldn't be at war.

Unfortunately, I have to face reality. Whether you support the war or not, it is costly and must be paid for. It would be nice to just oppose the cuts on the grounds that we shouldn't have gone to war or that we should cut military spending. But we can't just say that--there is no chance of that happening. We have to be diplomatic and come to a compromise.

Americans have no idea how badly we need the curb our deficit problem. Every year we throw billions down the tube just to re-finance the debt. These are interest payments that are increasingly going to foreign powers that are a net drain on our government's finances. This is the primary reason I opposed both of Bush's Tax Loans (It is a loan when to get money, you have to borrow money). But we're stuck with Bush's Tax Loans too, although they are up for renewal soon--let's hope they are not renewed. Not that I like taxes--I just prefer to pay them now at a lower overall value than at a future point at a higher value.

What I am saying is that we can either fight Bush on this and drown together, or we can support him here and help keep our heads above water. I don't agree with the vision he has laid out but it would be foolish to drive ourselves into a deeper deficit. Our ability to even provide programs like the ones being cut will be greatly depleted if we keep taking loan after loan. Remember that with each loan, an increasing percentage of total taxes is used to amortize the debt. Dead, wasted money. By paying down the debt now, we allow ourselves to provide services in the future.

There is nothing more beneficial for the country we can do than paying down the debt. There is no where else you can increase the value of each tax dollar you pay. Although he is not paying down the debt, reducing the deficit is just as important and is essentially the right foot forward on the path towards a surplus (and if you prevent yourself from going deeper into debt, that is quasi-paying off the debt, I guess a pre-emptive strike , which will finally pay things off. Ideally we'd spend 10X what we do now on firefighters, police, homeless, etc. but we have to deal with the situation we have at hand.

So I support Bush's plan on this one, hoping to keep our heads above the water. The budget issue is dire. I don't support his overall platform, but to go against it on this would be suicidal. Let's hope the tax loan is not renewed--now that we're in an economic upswing we don't need it (I reccomended a more effective but cheaper stimulus at the time--we did need cut#2, but cut #1 was frivelous). In times of boom paying down the debt or saving for the future (if you have no debt) is the smartest move. We're not fully out of the recession, but damn near close.

Birdseye wrote:In a perfect world we would be increasing spending on all those things.

And here, I thought you were a Libertarian...

Yes, but you forget my view on political parties:
I have my own views on the world, none of which fully fit into any singular party. My votes go with whatever party/person to me is facing the problems that are most dire in the government at the moment. For me after the patriot act, the war, and the budget deficit, the Libertarians make the most sense (They are anti-patriot act, war, budget deficit). That doesn't mean I agree with their overall philosophies. I voted green some too, but I hated their economic stand points. I know many libertarians are wolves in sheeps' clothing that just want to cut all wealth redistribution (which I disagree strongly with), but that doesn't mean many of their viewpoints aren't important to me.

I guess I shouldn't say I belong to a singular party. It's just kind of convenient. The whole party system makes people awfully biased. There are so many people who follow politics like a baseball team (*cough woodchip*) that I probably should refrain from affiliation.

kufyit wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html

Incredible cuts.

Cuts to police, cuts to firefighters.

Cuts to Native Americans (cuts in funding for their schools).

Doesn't Bush realize that fighting terrorism is as much an issue for the local law enforcement as it is for our military?

Yet prior to these budget cuts, the left was complaining how Bush was spending too much. Be nice if they could make up their mind.

woodchip wrote: Yet prior to these budget cuts, the left was complaining how Bush was spending too much. Be nice if they could make up their mind.

Good call!