Discussion: Bush's budget

[Creamo]

Originally posted by Toad
The President proposes, the Congress disposes.

This budget, like every budet from every President is merely the place that Congress starts. From here on, the President is pretty much on the sidelines and not as Coach but as Cheerleader.

This budget and the final budget will bear little resemblance to each other.

You heard it here first.

Interesting. Is this not how the State of the Union speech regarding social security changes will go? Hypothetical, say Bush could work out plan, so brilliant it would change retirement forever for the good, it still wouldn’t matter, as it will never, ever pass in Congress, right?

[oboe]

Originally posted by Martlet
Politics isn't allowed to be Christian anymore, remember?

Bush seems to wear his Christianity on his sleeve when it suits his purpose.    In that he is no different than most politicians.

Now in Minnesota, we once had a governor who told us religion was a crutch for the weak-minded.    There were definitely things about Jesse that I liked and respected.   Not that I agreed with, but at least he said what he believed.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by oboe
Bush seems to wear his Christianity on his sleeve when it suits his purpose.    In that he is no different than most politicians.

Now in Minnesota, we once had a governor who told us religion was a crutch for the weak-minded.    There were definitely things about Jesse that I liked and respected.   Not that I agreed with, but at least he said what he believed.

Maybe Bush does too...

How do you know Ventura wasnt just wearing his atheism on his sleeve to please his audience....

[oboe]

Good point, Grun.   My answer that Jesse didn't say one thing and do another.   If he said something, he meant it.    And it got him in trouble alot.    And sometimes he was wrong about things (example - he gave away "Jesse checks" returning taxes out of the state's surplus 'rainy day fund' to the taxpayers - and then the economy tanked and the state had a much rougher time weathering the economic storm because it had no cushion - thus we had to relearn the lesson of what a 'rainy day' fund is for).

He had a lot of potential, but in the end his thin skin and feud with the press corps seemed to do him in.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by oboe
Good point, Grun.   My answer that Jesse didn't say one thing and do another.   If he said something, he meant it.    And it got him in trouble alot.    And sometimes he was wrong about things (example - he gave away "Jesse checks" returning taxes out of the state's surplus 'rainy day fund' to the taxpayers - and then the economy tanked and the state had a much rougher time weathering the economic storm because it had no cushion - thus we had to relearn the lesson of what a 'rainy day' fund is for).

He had a lot of potential, but in the end his thin skin and feud with the press corps seemed to do him in.

Where has Bush said one thing and done another?

[Silat]

Originally posted by Krusher
The budget is vague?  It looks to be spelled out to me.

Ahhh I thought we were talking SS..

[lazs2]

seems Bush is slowing the increase in spending..  He should just dismantle the fine arts programs tho since they turn out gay losers like jb88.

Bush seems to be slowing the increase in spending on all social programs across the board.   All the people on here who claim to be "fiscally conservative and socialy liberal" are being proven to be absolutely flaming liberal in all matters.

lazs

[oboe]

Originally posted by Martlet
Where has Bush said one thing and done another?

I'll give you a few off the top of my head -

Do you remember his promise to hunt down Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice?   He got sidetracked with plans to invade Iraq, and then later said he didn't know and it didn't matter where Osama was.

Do you remember him saying (election promise) he was going to propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?    He has since backed off that one too.

And then there was his promise 'not to touch' Social Security, which he made just before the election, after some newspaper quoted him saying that he was going to come out hard to privatize SS in his new administration.     This one was a lot craftier, as later it was qualified to 'not touch SS for those at or near retirement'.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Krusher
The budget is vague?  It looks to be spelled out to me.

Well I reread your comment and you did have a paragraph about the dems response to his SS plan.
 So I stand by my question. He was vague about his SS plan and just because its a bad idea and people dont have a plan at the moment doesnt mean their criticism isnt warranted.

[Nash]

Vague? You think it's vague?

Haven't you been paying attention to Bush's Bamboozlepalooza tour? He clearly spells it out for anyone too lazy to wrap their own head around it:

"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

Okay, better? I'll keep working on it." - Bush

Don't blame Bush for your not getting it.

[Toad]

Still the Idea Man

Clinton bluntly says Democrats should stop defending the status quo and instead consider changes that would "increase the rate of return" on Social Security.

They could follow the model of the government employees' retirement system (as long-championed by some conservative think tanks) and give people the option, "with 1 or 2 percent of the payroll tax," to invest in one of three mutual funds "that almost always perform as well or better than the market," while at the same time permitting cautious investors the option of buying government bonds, so they could "get the guaranteed Social Security return and 100 percent safety."

[Silat]

Originally posted by Nash
Vague? You think it's vague?

Haven't you been paying attention to Bush's Bamboozlepalooza tour? He clearly spells it out for anyone too lazy to wrap their own head around it:



Don't blame Bush for your not getting it.

I will blame whomever I like:)
And you are so right. It is not vague at all. The banks and brokerage houses will make out like bandits.

[oboe]

You know I read somewhere the 75 year gap in SS could be completed eliminated in one fell swoop by simply eliminating the cap on payroll taxes - currently only the first $90,000 earned are taxed for SS purposes.

But this solution, (simple, cheap and effective as it is) falls squarely on the well to do.    So I don't expect much progress on it.   But it does give you an idea who the politicians serve.

What about that idea, guys?    You want a solution to the SS problem that is quick, easy, and effective, and doesn't ask you to pay anything extra or cut your benefits?   (Assuming there aren't many here who earn over $90,000/yr).

I reread Nash's Bush quote several times, and continue to shake my head in wonder at the power of democracy.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Silat
I will blame whomever I like:)
And you are so right. It is not vague at all. The banks and brokerage houses will make out like bandits.

Yeah.  Why would we want to dump more money into the economy.  Keep it stashed for gov't expansion.

Were you opposed to this idea when Clinton came up with it, or just now that Bush has adopted it?

[TweetyBird]

So, the idea is to make the veteran/military class, two tiered. We can devide them into real and fake soldiers. Do fake soldiers get a guarantee they will never be made a real soldier when they sign up?

BTW Martlet, are you a real soldier or a fake soldier?

On which tier is Bush?