Bush sends Congress $3.1 trillion budget

[Socrtease]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush introduced a $3.1 trillion budget on Monday that supports sizable increases in military spending to fight the war on terrorism and protects his signature tax cuts.

The spending proposal, which shows the government spending $3 trillion in a 12-month period for the first time in history, squeezes most of government outside of national security, and also seeks $196 billion in savings over the next five years in the government's giant health care programs -- Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor.

Even with those savings, Bush projects that the deficits, which had been declining, will soar to near-record levels, hitting $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009. The all-time high deficit in dollar terms was $413 billion in 2004.

Democrats attacked Bush's final spending plan as a continuation of this administration's failed policies which wiped out a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion and replaced it with a record buildup in debt.

"Today's budget bears all the hallmarks of the Bush legacy -- it leads to more deficits, more debt, more tax cuts, more cutbacks in critical services," said House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-South Carolina.

For his last budget, Bush, as a moneysaving measure, stopped the practice of providing 3,000 paper copies of the budget to members of Congress and the media, instead posting the entire document online. Democrats joked that Bush cut back on the printed copies because he ran out of red ink.

The whole article can be seen at:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/bush.budget.ap/index.html

 

[Epicurus]

Wow what a great "fiscal conservative".

I hope a fresh order of extra large pretzels arrives at the Whitehouse today.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep a true conservative.
And this budget does not even contain the money for the war.

 

[Epicurus]

Yep a true conservative.
And this budget does not even contain the money for the war.

Please stop that bullshit. It really only shows your own ignorance.

Conservative ideology rejects big-spending, big-government interventionists like Bush, and to pretend otherwise is equivalent to covering your ears and crying "nanananana".

Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative", successfully suckered the easily-duped Republican base, and proceeded to usher in an era of increased government size and spending that would make FDR cream his pants.

Bush is a moron incapable of balancing a budget, and an unprincipled panderer who has no moral problem with spending tax payer dollars to buy votes. Neither of those are conservative, no matter how you'd like to spin it.

So please, if it's possible (which it probably isn't at this point), stop your ignorant slanders. There are plenty of legitatimate criticisms of conservatism. If you don't know them I can teach you.

But you make every opponent of Bush look stupider by spouting off these innaccuracies, and on behalf of Bush-haters everywhere I would ask you to stop and learn the facts. Bush can be critcized plenty of legitimate ways without lies or exaggerations.

 

[uscitizen]

Please stop that bullshit. It really only shows your own ignorance.

Conservative ideology rejects big-spending, big-government interventionists like Bush, and to pretend otherwise is equivalent to covering your ears and crying "nanananana".

Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative", successfully suckered the easily-duped Republican base, and proceeded to usher in an era of increased government size and spending that would make FDR cream his pants.

Bush is a moron incapable of balancing a budget, and an unprincipled panderer who has no moral problem with spending tax payer dollars to buy votes. Neither of those are conservative, no matter how you'd like to spin it.

So please, if it's possible (which it probably isn't at this point), stop your ignorant slanders. There are plenty of legitatimate criticisms of conservatism. If you don't know them I can teach you.

But you make every opponent of Bush look stupider by spouting off these innaccuracies, and on behalf of Bush-haters everywhere I would ask you to stop and learn the facts. Bush can be critcized plenty of legitimate ways without lies or exaggerations.

HUH ????

actually that was pretty funny.
That is if you were not serious.

 

[Epicurus]

HUH ????

actually that was pretty funny.
That is if you were not serious.

Bump.

So that everyone can see a display of total intellectual capitulation by usc.

 

[Bonestorm]

Bump.

So that everyone can see a display of total intellectual capitulation by usc.

I think your sarcasm detector is busted. Or maybe mine is hypersensitive. I thought he was joking around with that "true conservative" line.

 

[Epicurus]

I think your sarcasm detector is busted. Or maybe mine is hypersensitive. I thought he was joking around with that "true conservative" line.

If he hadn't said it in response to my sarcastic compliment about Bush's "fiscal conservative" credentials I would agree.

Then again, I've suspected for years that usc doesn't read threads before he posts his one-liner anyway, so your explanation could well be accurate too.

 

[Bonestorm]

If he hadn't said it in response to my sarcastic compliment about Bush's "fiscal conservative" credentials I would agree.

Then again, I've suspected for years that usc doesn't read threads before he posts his one-liner anyway, so your explanation could well be accurate too.

Well, to respond to your point about "fiscal conservatism," it seems to me that all of the fiscal conservatives have a track record for talking about cutting spending and then jacking up spending once they have some control over where the spending will go.

 

[Epicurus]

Well, to respond to your point about "fiscal conservatism," it seems to me that all of the fiscal conservatives have a track record for talking about cutting spending and then jacking up spending once they have some control over where the spending will go.

I would agree.

The only fiscal conservatives I can remember from the Bush years were Jeff Flake and Ron Paul making headlines for stripping pork out of several bills.

 

[Damocles]

Well, to respond to your point about "fiscal conservatism," it seems to me that all of the fiscal conservatives have a track record for talking about cutting spending and then jacking up spending once they have some control over where the spending will go.

Hence the reason I will only support somebody who will support a balanced budget amendment to send to congress in my district (now that Tom is retiring).

 

[uscitizen]

True I am not reading the threads very closely. This is getting too boring.

 

[Epicurus]

True I am not reading the threads very closely. This is getting too boring.

Ah well you were right dung.

Shame on me for thinking Usc read anything other than the subject line before responding.

By boring he means "technical" and details are clearly not his forte.

 

[cawacko]

True I am not reading the threads very closely. This is getting too boring.

When you have little else to offer other than 'Bush sucks' and 'Bush voters are stupid' I would imagine it does get a little boring.

 

[uscitizen]

I guess not. I got my HVAC cert a few weeks ago, I think I will spend more time working on my Toyota Prius certification. Have fun dude.

 

[Epicurus]

If I had as little to add to the debate as usc does, I wouldn't bother logging on.

When I don't have something to add, I don't say anything, which is another trait he would do well to pick up on.

 

[Chapdog]

this budget makes me want to vomit.

 

[Bonestorm]

The increases to the DoD budget are particularly insane. I mean, how is WWII-level defense spending even remotely justifiable? And that doesn't include Iraq or nuclear weapons development or homeland security stuff.

Congress should toss this thing in the trash and tell W to try again.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The increases to the DoD budget are particularly insane. I mean, how is WWII-level defense spending even remotely justifiable? And that doesn't include Iraq or nuclear weapons development or homeland security stuff.

Congress should toss this thing in the trash and tell W to try again.

Dung... that is exactly why the defense budget is the way it is. It is a trap. Bush and the Reps WANT the Dems to trash it and talk about how the defense budget is too high. Cause you know what follows that?

My guess is, Pelosi and Reid will take a look...and

Reid.... "that there looks like a bear trap" (translated: that Defense budget is too high)

Pelosi...."yep it sure do" (translated: those evil Rep bastards)

Reid .... "I wonder what would happen if we stepped in it" (translated: lets stick it to em and tell them its too high)

Pelosi... "golly gee, I dunno... lets find out" (translated: yep, lets stick it to those evil Rep Bastards)

Followed closely by....

Bush .....""Them Dems are weak on national defense, look how they want to take money away from our troops and national security efforts" (translated: tricked em again)

 

[gonzojournals]

3 trillion? Damn. There was a time when the entire national debt was 3 trillion dollars (and it wasn't that long ago).