Senate Reverses Bush's Budget Cuts

uscitizen

Villified User
Senate Reverses Bush's Budget Cuts


Oct 23, 9:25 PM (ET)

By ANDREW TAYLOR

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democrats on Tuesday reversed President Bush's cuts to education, health research and grants to local communities as they gird for Bush's first-ever veto of a regular appropriations bill.

By a 75-19 vote, the Senate gave bipartisan approval to a huge health and education spending bill that will likely be the first of the fiscal 2008 spending bills Democrats will ship to the White House to start a veto battle involving the budget for almost every domestic agency.

It promises to be a protracted battle, and Bush has a decided advantage, but Democrats have seized on the massive health and education measure as the best measure with which to challenge Bush and his GOP allies in Congress. The measure totals over $600 billion and reverses a raft of cuts sought by Bush to health research, special education and funding for grants to community groups that help the poor, among others.

The confrontation with Bush over domestic programs - many of which are also popular with Republicans, as demonstrated by the margin of passage - will come on the heels of the bruising veto battle over a children's health insurance bill. Programs funded by the health and education bill affect schoolchildren, workers, the poor and disabled, the unemployed and those with special needs or drug and alcohol problems, among others.

"In passing this bill, Democrats in Congress will say that the president doesn't care about children or education or health research," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "We've all heard these tired old lines before. The facts demonstrate the president's strong and consistent commitment to children, education and health research - and the American people are smart enough to know that there is no such thing as a free lunch."

The Senate measure, which exceeds Bush's budget by more than $10 billion, must be reconciled with a companion House measure passed in July before the legislation can be sent to Bush.

Battles over anti-crime funds, transportation and housing and perhaps the homeland security budget will follow.

"We are arguing about whether or not to invest further moneys in education, health care, (anti-crime grants), border security, port security, environmental protection," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "The President has asked for $196.4 billion of supplemental funding this year for Iraq and Afghanistan ... while he argues as to whether or not we ought to increase ... cancer research, diabetes research, heart/lung research for our citizens."

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., countered, "The spending hike they are asking for in this one bill, if allowed to continue at the same rate, will cost the American taxpayer $120 billion over the next ten years."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071024/D8SF9V2O0.html

Cry the blues over 120 billion over the next 10 years mitch the bitch, while wanting $196.4 billion of supplemental funding THIS year for Iraq and Afghanistan ...

sheesh....

also note the 75 to 19 vote.....
 
I just hope that they put in there that none of the money can go to attack Iran.
Hmm I am curious, need to check out who the nonvoting ones without balls were....
 
Democrats definetely spend worse and look at all the wussy Repubs who didn't have any balls to allow the cuts to government.
At least 19 of the Repubs did though, good for them.
 
Democrats definetely spend worse and look at all the wussy Repubs who didn't have any balls to allow the cuts to government.
At least 19 of the Repubs did though, good for them.


Dude, you are aware that discretionary spending under Bush has increased at the highest rate in recent history, beating out LBJ even (at least he had a plan), and this was largely with a Republican Congress. Please take your ahistorical nonsense back from whence it came.

It may be true that Democrats spend more than Republicans on certain types of programs, but Republicans spend more overall.
 
Dano just skipped right over the 196 bill or so for the war.
The 120 bill over 10 years for domestic programs really burns his butt though :D
 
Dano just skipped right over the 196 bill or so for the war.
The 120 bill over 10 years for domestic programs really burns his butt though :D

If you want to understand the Danold you need to realize that I always think about what is permanent in terms of government spending/growth and take that as a much greater threat.
Wars end, Socialism doesn't.

As for your numbers, try and look at the big picture:
So Iraq war comes in at about $80 billion a year.

Liberal Welfare State:
Medicaid - $329 billion
http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4424740

Medicare: another $329 billion

SS: $500 billion (a half trillion!)
http://www.federalbudget.com/

Those are the big 3. Then you have an ungodly amount spent on other Liberal social welfare programs like Food Stamps, social services, etc...

Bottom line, the Iraq war is $80 billion a year and the Liberal welfare state is WELL over a trillion each year, MORE than 12 times as much.
 
Wars may end, but this particular war doesn't benefit anyone (unlike, say, Social Security, which DOES keep a few old people off the streets), and sometimes, they take longer to end than you think.

I don't suppose anyone saw the estimate that came out the other day that put Iraq at $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years?
 
If you want to understand the Danold you need to realize that I always think about what is permanent in terms of government spending/growth and take that as a much greater threat.
Wars end, Socialism doesn't.

As for your numbers, try and look at the big picture:
So Iraq war comes in at about $80 billion a year.

Liberal Welfare State:
Medicaid - $329 billion
http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4424740

Medicare: another $329 billion

SS: $500 billion (a half trillion!)
http://www.federalbudget.com/

Those are the big 3. Then you have an ungodly amount spent on other Liberal social welfare programs like Food Stamps, social services, etc...

Bottom line, the Iraq war is $80 billion a year and the Liberal welfare state is WELL over a trillion each year, MORE than 12 times as much.

80 bill a year ? Why then is it up to about 500 billion or more and has been going on how many years ?

You just said 50 bill in another thread Dano....
Darn, it has gone up 30 billion in an hour or so :D

Imagine what it will cost by noon.
 
Wars may end, but this particular war doesn't benefit anyone (unlike, say, Social Security, which DOES keep a few old people off the streets), and sometimes, they take longer to end than you think.

I don't suppose anyone saw the estimate that came out the other day that put Iraq at $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years?

Yeah I posted a thread on it yesterday, no one seemed to want to comment on it though. Ignore it and it will go away ?
 
The republicans need to get off the war horse and focus on domestic issues. otherwise the dems are going to win full control of government by a wide margin and be able to sac us with social heath care, tax increases, and all sorts of shitty things.
 
The republicans need to get off the war horse and focus on domestic issues. otherwise the dems are going to win full control of government by a wide margin and be able to sac us with social heath care, tax increases, and all sorts of shitty things.

yeah, sadly it does seem that the Dems will continue in the republican tratition.
 
Back
Top