Bush's new 'budget'

[Frogm4n]

Here's a known crazy liberal group expressing their thoughts on it:
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576

And a simplified ap report of it

Bush Unveils $2.4 Trillion Budget
1 minute ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!


By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) sent Congress a $2.4 trillion election-year budget on Monday featuring big increases for defense and homeland security but also a record $521 billion deficit.

To battle the soaring deficits, Bush proposed squeezing scores of government programs and sought outright spending cuts in seven of 15 Cabinet-level agencies. The Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) were targeted for the biggest reductions.


The president declared that his spending blueprint, which will set off months of heated debate in Congress, "advances our three highest priorities" winning the war on terror, strengthening homeland defenses and boosting the economic recovery.


"Our nation remains at war," Bush declared in his budget message. "This nation has committed itself to the long war against terror. And we will see that war to its inevitable conclusion: the destruction of the terrorists."


The president's plan for the 2005 budget year, which begins next Oct. 1, proposes spending $2.4 trillion for all government activities, up 3.5 percent from the current year.Revenues will total $2.04 trillion, a sizable 13.2 percent increase that the administration forecasts will occur from growing tax receipts powered by a stronger economy.


The president projects the 2005 deficit will be $364 trillion, down from a projected record high deficit in dollar terms of $521 billion this year. He pledged to cut that in half over the next five years.


The president's budget states that stronger economic growth and reductions in general government spending will produce steady improvements in the deficit, which the administration projects will fall to $237 billion in 2009.


However, Democrats immediately attacked the spending proposal for what they viewed as harmful reductions in various government programs and the president's insistence on making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent at a cost projected in the budget of more than $900 billion over 10 years.


"This administration pledged that its tax cuts and policy choices would not turn record surpluses into record deficits, but this budget shows that's exactly what's happened," said Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle.


Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, called on Congress to reject Bush's spending plan, charging it was the "most antifamily, anti-worker, anti-healthcare, anti-education budget in modern times."


Bush would boost military spending by 7 percent in 2005, but that does not include the money needed to keep troops in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites). Officials said a supplemental request for these funds will be sent to Congress but not until after the November elections. Congress last year approved an $87.5 billion wartime supplemental for the current budget year.


Homeland security, another top priority would receive a 10 percent boost, including an 11 percent increase in FBI (news - web sites) funding to support increased counterterrorism activities.

My favorite part is where they expect a 13 percent increase in revenue. thats hilarious.

[FUNKED1]

This is great, $500B deficit and the DNC still whines about cuts.  A pox on both houses.

[Frogm4n]

but you see funked.  Its 500bill assumeing that we get close to 14 percent tax revenue increase. While most economists believe it will only be a 6 percent increase. Get ready for that trillion dollar+ shortfall( you need to add another 200bill for iraq and afghanistan which are not included as well)

Bill clinton never had a government this large.

[kappa]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
This is great, $500B deficit and the DNC still whines about cuts.  A pox on both houses.

Be correct now.. They wine about cuts in certain areas while bush increases spending in certain areas.. Neither is right....

[Toad]

Everybody...... EVERYBODY...... that goes to Congress goes there to spend YOUR money. They argue amongst themselves over what to spend it on and how much to spend but the bottom line is that they ALL go to spend YOUR money.

Pretending one party or the other would try to spend less of YOUR money is laughable. They'd both spend as much as thought they could get away with spending. They'd just spend it on different things.

[rpm]

Odd that Republicans create bigger government and budget deficits while crying about Democrats, pork and smaller government. Show me an honest politician and I'll show you an alien.

[FUNKED1]

Vote from the Rooftops

[Toad]

Let's get real a second. The US economy and all previous US budgeting went out the window on 9/11.

Do you REALLY think spending on Homeland Security is a mistake? Do your REALLY think either party wouldn't fund it to the max? Is there waste in HS? OF COURSE! It's a government program, fer cod's sake!

The War in Iraq is a huge money pit as well. IF it was justified, then it was probably money well spent in the long run. It's still expensive though. IF it wasn't justified, well then somebody needs to be held accountable for this human and monetary waste. However, recall THIS FACT: the Congress authorized this war in October of 2002.

House  Yes - 296      No - 133      Not voting - 3

Senate Yes - 77      No - 23

Senators Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Clinton and Rep. Gephardt voted Yes.

Rep. Kucinich voted No.

Bottom line is given the current situation with respect to terroism, either party would be running a huge deficit.

[miko2d]

Toad, most of increase in Gov't spending is not security or war related.

 miko

[Frogm4n]

If we actually paid attention to the warning signs; sept 11 never would have happened under the previous budget. Most of what is being done is just a dog and poney show to make us feel better. The crap we are spending on now is not worth the money or even worthwhile. And why do we need a anti missile shield that still dosnt work?
Having more fbi agents investigateing clintons pants then following known terrorists as they travel the us seemed to not have helped either.

[Toad]

Yeah, look at it. The whole thing is a BS argument; Congress exists to spend YOUR money.

Are you telling me the other party would oppose increasing:

$18 million increase for the National Endowment for the Arts.

A Medicare prescription drug benefit program at $534 billion, far above the $400 billion figure Congress used in passing the measure two months ago

No Child Left Behind education program

Job training programs, including one that links community colleges with employers

An $18 million increase for the National Endowment for the Arts.
 
Homeland security, another top priority, a 10 percent boost

Military spending by 7 percent in 2005

They aren't arguing about not spending money. They're arguing about how to spend MORE of YOUR money.

In other words, they're arguing over who's pet projects get the most money.

They'll still spend every cent they can get from YOU and then they'll spend MORE after that.

[Frogm4n]

yes clinton did balance the budget.

[lord dolf vader]

when toads best quibble is you would do the same.


the tides are turning.

remember and let "iraq has wmd" join other favorites like. "i am not a crook" "I dont remember" and "no new taxes"

[Toad]

Keep on drinking the Kool Aid, LDV.

Try repeating this mantra too:

"Only the Democrats never waste any taxpayer money. The are the most fiscally conservative people in the world."

It fits right in with all your other delusional fantasies.

[Frogm4n]

How many bets dealing with WMDS have you lost toad?