home

Bush Budget Cuts

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 11:58:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: We wrote this Saturday but it's a big story today so we're bumping it.

***************
Here's what Bush is proposing in his new budget:

  • slashing grants to local law enforcement agencies
  • cutting spending for environmental protection,
  • cutting funds for American Indian schools
  • cutting funds for home-heating aid for the poor

He's alloting 1/2 the amount he allotted last year for school districts in poor neighborhoods. Here are some more details:

According to figures obtained by the AP, Bush would slice a $600 million grant program for local police agencies to $60 million next year. Grants to local firefighters, for which Congress provided $715 million this year, would fall to $500 million.

He would eliminate the $300 million the government gives to states for incarcerating illegal aliens who commit crimes. ... Also gone would be assistance for police departments to improve technology and their ability to communicate with other agencies.

The Environmental Protection Agency's $8.1 billion would drop by $450 million, or about 6 percent, with most of the reductions coming in water programs and projects won by lawmakers for their home districts.

The Bureau of Indians Affairs would be sliced by $100 million to $2.2 billion. The reduction would come almost entirely from the agency's effort to build more schools.

The $2.2 billion program that provides low-income people - in large part the elderly - with home-heating aid would be cut to $2 billion. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the reduction would be "wrong-headed an inappropriate," especially with this season's jump in oil prices.

< Ward Churchill: Point, Counterpoint | The New Theocracy >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush Budget Cuts | 87 comments (87 topical)
    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:59:39 PM EST
    First term: let's spend billions and billions of (borrowed) dollars on Iraq, billions and billions on tax cuts for the wealthy, the sky's the limit. Second term: Gee, we have a fiscal crisis. time to be sensible. we need to cut social security, aid to the poor, home-heating for the elderly (!), education, assistance to local law enforcement, environmental protection, etc. etc. (otherwise how would we pay back what we borrowed for the war and the tax cuts).

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:57:52 PM EST
    Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your president. This budget beguiles the hypocrisy that is the neo-conservative agenda. It is shameful, as is our leadership.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#3)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 03:00:41 AM EST
    Obviously we Demoncrats lack the moral clarity to see that this is a compassionate agenda, like Fox News tells us.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 03:44:06 AM EST
    You don't have to be stupid to be poor (or middle class) and vote Republican. But it helps.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#5)
    by john horse on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 04:10:31 AM EST
    re: He's alloting 1/2 the amount he allotted last year for school districts in poor neighborhoods. Hey what happened to No Child Left Behind? Sounds like Bush is leaving quite a few behind.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 06:52:26 AM EST
    Love the blastocyst/embryo/fetus, hate the child/adolescent/adult. Apparently a human's greatest crime is being born unwealthy.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:26:50 AM EST
    Congrats, TL. Your toadies are taking the bait in droves.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:33:33 AM EST
    et al - And he is increasing the funding for Pell Grants.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:34:02 AM EST
    Considering that the "assistance to local law enforcement" was probably just more money to buy taser guns, SWAT team gear and surveillance equipment for more drug busting task forces, I wouldn't shed any tears about the loss of cop assistance grants. Screw 'em.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#10)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:40:08 AM EST
    Yes, he is increasing the amount of pell grants. Even after the increase, they will still be below the level promised in the first campaign. To be fair, what politico ever keeps their promises? It would be nice to see some calls for accountability from the GOP side, though it might be too much to expect in today's uber-partisan political swamp.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#11)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 10:29:33 AM EST
    Yeah Jim, and don't forget Poland!

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#12)
    by desertswine on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:23:42 PM EST
    Can't wait for filthier air and dirtier water. I already see classrooms full of kids with those damn puffer things that help them to breathe and entire classes of kids with ADD.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 04:41:35 PM EST
    The president didn't go far enough. Let's ELIMINATE useless departments like the EPA, HHS, Education, Veterans' Affairs, HUD, Labor, Transporation, and Interior. That will free up a massive amount in the budget for the necessary departments like Defense and State. As Ronald Reagan always said, "government IS the problem." The less government there is, the better off the country will be.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:37:13 PM EST
    Adept - Didn't a war happen sometime in there?

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#15)
    by bad Jim on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:56:47 AM EST
    What war? The last thing that George is going to do is ask us to pay for this war!

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#16)
    by bad Jim on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:01:28 AM EST
    Someone, sometime, somewhere will pay for this war, but payment will be deferred until this administration has departed. Its central principle is that it never pays its bills. Worse yet, it delivers fewer IOU's for worthy causes than it promises in prime time speeches.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:15:49 AM EST
    didn't massive tax cuts forthe rich happen in there? Of course this is the plan that has been at least talked about since the Reagan years, bleed the programs dry. Now that Bush has run the economy into the red, by a combination of tax cuts, war, and increased spending, he can then try and balance the budget by gutting the social programs. He took an even more Machivellian approach to medicare, which has long been hated by the conservatives like Reagan. The drug benefit that was passed, while lining the pockets of friends and drug companies alikewill make the Medicare so expensive as to make it ripe for major cuts. Note that the expected cost of the drug benefit alone dwarfs the projected shortfall in SS. Note, that while making these cuts there is plenty of money for the military (not counting the war) and increased aid to israel. Making the tax cuts permanent would insure the gutting of most social programs.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:44:31 AM EST
    We already are paying for this war, as inflation causes the dollar to lose value, and foreign investors shy away from the US, and put their money into Euros. If enough foreign investors do that, the dollar is sunk. (The future could look like the past; look at what happened to Weimar Republic Germany when their currency was devalued by inflation.) This budget is as much an attempt to reassure those foreign investors as it is to demonstrate to the 'faithful' that Mr. Bush remains 'true' to neoconservative principles. Because if they don't see cuts, it's a sure sign that the present ruinous financial policies will continue. If they see that, the foreigners will not invest...and those investments are desperately needed to continue the war. China and Japan are carrying our National Debt right now, and the strain on their economies is something they can't keep up. If they don't see some belt-tightening, they won't continue financing the debt - when it's in their long term strategic benefit not to, anyway.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:04:27 AM EST
    Case in point: the Russians are unlatching the ruble from the dollar. Russia ends de facto dollar peg and moves to align rouble with euro This is a very bad sign, as other countries are considering doing the same. If enough do so, the dollar will suffer a major drop in value, worse than it is having now. A lot of things could become very costly, including food, fuel, and other basics.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:56:17 AM EST
    SD - Economy into the read? What did you have in your Post Toasties this morning? Unemployment very low, interest rates low, inflation, very low. Taxes, lower than in 2000. SD, can you tell us that you didn't get a tax cut? And if you did, and since you are against it, just send a check to the government for the difference. And I note your anti-Israel side is showing again. Quick, tell us how your best friends are Jews. Nemo - What inflation?

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 06:02:34 AM EST
    cutting funds for home-heating aid for the poor
    At a time when home heating oil prices are sky high. I know of a couple neighbors who are setting their thermostats at 60 in order to keep the tank full through winter. I guess that's one way to deal w/ SS, freeze 'em out of existence.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 06:03:21 AM EST
    SD - Economy into the read? What did you have in your Post Toasties this morning?
    Not enough coffee Unemployment not low. Counting people who have givenup looking and are uneligible as well as those who are taking jobs at very reduced pay (underemployed)you are probably closer to 8-10 %. Inflation coming back. feds are going speed up their interest rate hikes by most accounts and low taxes are delusional in the face of such large deficits.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 06:31:24 AM EST
    The safest way for our "allies" in old Europe to put the brakes on American aggression will be to slowly but steadily destabilize our economy by switching from dollar to euro. Our allies would never have done this to us if we had not marched into this aggressive unilateral position. Of course, I am trying not to forget Poland, but my guess is they will move back to the European view easily. How many Polish troops are in Iraq exactly? It's the necons dream. They have engineered the economic trainwreck that will do away with the FDR and LBJ programs: Social Security, Medicare, and the other safety net programs. I believe Gingrich was asked about 1994 if he would attack or dismantle Social Security and he said "not at first" or "not yet." Well, the time has come. Mission accomplished.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 06:39:14 AM EST
    When the Fed prints more 'money', the value of it goes down. This is reflected in the currency exchange rate. The Feds have been doing just that, printing more Federal Reserve Notes (those green pieces of paper we all carry around in our wallets and purses) and the value of them has been dropping thanks to that. It's reflected in the exchange rates. Since there's nothing to back it with (like gold) the Treasury can run the presses night and day, and they have been. End result is that foreign investor's confidence in the dollar begins to suffer, and they start to look for a currency that is more stable, hence the quiet exodus to the Euro. This is being reflected in the prices we pay. Eat out much? Mickey D's has been raising their prices on all their menu items. That's inflation. The same for prices at the grocery store. Going up again. That's inflation. And it's liable to get worse.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 06:51:01 AM EST
    Shortly after the fall of Russia, a number of letters appeared on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. The letters drove home the point that social programs such as social security, medicaid and the such were forced upon the country to fight Communism. The letters indicated that capital could now change the system and receive its just rewards. The attitude expressed by many conservatives rests upon a tortured interpretation of the story of the talents in the bible by inferring that one who succeeds in increasing wealth is one who has done God's will. Actually, the story merely states that any person should attempt to use the talents God gave them to their best advantage. Some how the accumulation of personal wealth seems to run counter to the rest of Christian doctrine of caring for the poor. The same attitude was prevelant throughout the day of the Robber Barons in the United States. Testimony in front of Congress by some of the leading industrial magnates of the time supported the view that if one were rich, it was a sign that God had blessed their endeavors. Is it any supprise now that the disparity of wealth now equals that of the day of the Robber Barons? Is it a suprise that Texas ranks near the bottom on many indicies of poverty? Is it surprising to find the Bush administration backing away from the bonds supporting the Social Security trust fund even though the current balance was aided greatly through payroll taxes in 1983 specifically aimed at funding the Baby Boomers? The new social security plan will default on the trust fund bonds. The administration has already signaled this in its back ground briefing before the SOTU. Think of it, income tax breaks to fund a reduction in marginal tax rates that primarily benefits the weathiest. However, the majority of tax payers (80%?) pay more in payroll tax than income tax. The Bush tax reform neatly avoids the actual federal tax rate by leaving out payroll taxes. (The justification being that this is not really an income tax but rather payment for social security insurance.) Now that lie is exposed. The Republicans want to consider payroll tax nothing more than part of the general revenue. People need to wake up and re-examine the Bush tax cuts and the new budget cuts.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:13:14 AM EST
    Well said, J Mohr. The pace of these economic events is slower than electoral politics, so Jim and his friends can play short attention span theater and cite current employment numbers like they have any correlation with the issues being discussed. It's a trainwreck, but it happens in slow motion. Fiscal irresponsibility can be a lot of fun until the time comes to start paying up. Let's all get jobs building cluster bombs. Pay is good, health insurance, dental, private social security accounts - where could the problem be?

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#27)
    by soccerdad on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:18:17 AM EST
    The term income tax is fast becoming a misnomer. With more and more taxbreaks for the rich, its really becoming a payroll tax; i.e. tax on income derived from real work. Income derived from things like dividens, investments, capital gains etc are being taxed less and less. In addition more corps are either paying less tax or avoiding paying most of therir tax by setting up a post office box in some island. So the result of all this is a shift of the tax burden to the middle class. What a lot of Bush supporters don't realize yet is that they are not part of the privliged few. But since most of our congresmen, senators, President and VP are all part of the elite class, or will be after leveraging their connections, there is no one that cares about the average person. We have the best government money can buy, but the middle class can't afford to ante up. And Bush's answer is in essence "let them eat cake"

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#28)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:56:23 AM EST
    “The president didn't go far enough. Let's ELIMINATE useless departments like the EPA, HHS, Education, Veterans' Affairs, HUD, Labor, Transporation, and Interior.” Here, here. “We already are paying for this war, as inflation causes the dollar to lose value, and foreign investors shy away from the US … If they see that, the foreigners will not invest” First, a dollar slide isn’t inflation, unless your talking about travel plans to Europe or high-end electronics. I think most economists are in agreement that the slide of the dollar is linked to the large current and projected budget deficits coupled to the awesome national debt. A budget more balanced than fy2004 should be more inspiring to foreign investment. “China and Japan are carrying our National Debt right now, and the strain on their economies is something they can't keep up.” This is a bizarre view; are you worried about the strain on your credit card company as they finance your debt? Any foreign investor is paid interest on their investment; they are making money, the only risk is default. The important question is can they get a better return investing in some other economy. As well as Europe is doing (2004 euro-zone unemployment is down to 9%) they still haven’t surpassed the US in GDP and investment return; yet. I’m confused with the tone of most of these posts. Are you all pi**ed about deficits or spending cuts? Anyway, check it all out for yourself.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:16:57 AM EST
    J Mohr: If you don't mind, how about posting a link where
    Testimony in front of Congress by some of the leading industrial magnates of the time supported the view that if one were rich, it was a sign that God had blessed their endeavors
    . Soccerdad: I must be one of the priveledged few. (Active duty Military, soon to retire, so I doubt it). My family has managed to save the money from the tax cuts each year in a CD. I think Bush proposed alot of cuts, hoping a few make it. Congressmen of both sides will scramble to save their pork and try to be reelected.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:27:00 AM EST
    ... it's "hear, hear" Pigwiggle, as in "listen, listed, I agree with this. Are you secretly starting your own government, commune or kibbutz? Even in the Stone Age, people who didn't participate in the hunt got a piece of meat (the presumption being that they contributed in other ways, e.g. babysitting, cooking, drawing on cave walls, healing the sick, etc.) Given the disconnect of the family support system when folks moved off of farms where they could grow their own food and raise their children while making money in "cottage industries" to cities where one had to work for a company to feed oneself and where one must support a non-working spouse or pay half their salary for day care to support a family, who makes sure that we don't all end up the employees of the modern equivalent of the Triangle Shirt Factory (see NYC History)? Who makes sure we get to eat even if we can't hunt?

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:40:45 AM EST
    ppj @ 06:56 AM I can't answer for soccerdad, but I did get a tax cut from Mr. Bush, He gave me back a little of the increased Social Security Tax introduced by Mr. Reagan to cover SSA shortfalls in the future. Now, he proposes that the extra funds he gave me will compensate me for the cuts he proposes in my Social security benefits. Do you think I am ahead in the game? I would be happy to break even, but don't think it will be the case.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:44:10 AM EST
    In explanation, I offer the following: Sinking Dollar Dominates Davos Debate from an article in the New York Times. Each nation holds the currencies of other nations as investments; China and Japan have held ours for a long time, but their investments are falling in value. When they get tired of holding onto increasingly devalued dollars, they'll bolt, dump the dollar, and start a run that other nations will quickly follow. That's when inflation could really eat out the substance of the dollar, rendering the toilet paper more valuable. When the international finacial elite start sizing up the US economy for a diet, we're in trouble.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#33)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:49:01 AM EST
    “... it's "hear, hear" Pigwiggle, as in "listen, listed, I agree with this.” Thanks for the correction. “Are you secretly starting your own government, commune or kibbutz? Even in the Stone Age, people who didn't participate in the hunt got a piece of meat” Like you, I am compelled to be charitable; I give money, donate blood, and so forth. I don’t consider farm subsidies and the FCC charity; even if they were I am more capable than the feds to judge who I believe is deserving of sharing my stuff. “who makes sure that we don't all end up the employees of the modern equivalent of the Triangle Shirt Factory (see NYC History)? Who makes sure we get to eat even if we can't hunt?” The general standard of living has consistently increased for EVERYONE over time. This has very little to do with government and much to do with innovation and industry. You are perfectly capable of coming out to Idaho and buying enough (cheap) land to sustain yourself in the fashion of family subsistence farms; companies are not controlling your mind and destiny. And to answer the second question; you are dependant on the kindness and generosity of your friends and neighbors if you cannot do for yourself. The government does charity because folks want charity done. Folks will do charity if the feds don’t; or even in spite of the feds.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:15:36 AM EST
    Pigwiggle: Yes, I am concerned about the financial strain of carrrying U.S. debt on China, Japan and other countries. This is a matter of confidence in the strength of the U.S. dollar, the ability of the U. S. to repay and the return on investment that foreign creditors expect from their investment in U.S. bonds. A falling dollar means that the return on investment must increase to cover the loss of value in the principal amount of the bonds as the dollar falls. A failure to address debt also signals a concommitant loss of confidence in the ability of the U.S. to repay those bonds. Please note that the current budget deficit projections out of the government do not take into account the costs of items which have not been included in the budget (war in Iraq) or the long term cost of SS privitization (beyond the first ten years) or the cost of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Indeed, the very act of repudiating the SS trust fund bonds by switching to a pay-as-you-go plan without trust fund redemption would signal a willingness on the part of the US to repudiate bond obligations. China has already indicated that it wants to diversify its bond holding to be less reliant on U.S. bonds. Russia announced that it will no longer peg its currency to the dollar. It will peg it to the Euro. These are not promising developments. Rove said that deficits do not matter. A good statement as to the politics of the matter. A fiscally irresponsible presumption.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:26:56 AM EST
    Wyle E. Coyote: I will look into finding a link on the web site. Many years ago, I did a paper on the growth of industrialism in the United States and the impact of social culture on the process. This was before the internet. I had to rely upon good old paper including a number of hearings concerning trusts and the social impacts of industrialization. What struck me was the belief (not limited to the U.S.) that wealth indicated God's favor. There was also a great deal of testimony concerning Social Darwinism. Those who did not prosper should not survive.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:31:41 AM EST
    And to answer the second question; you are dependant on the kindness and generosity of your friends and neighbors if you cannot do for yourself. The government does charity because folks want charity done. Folks will do charity if the feds don’t; or even in spite of the feds. So, what happens when the friends and neighbors you were relying upon for charity are in need of charity themselves? What happens when the charitable churches are no longer able to provide charity because the sources they were relying upon to provide the necessary funds are now in need of charity themselves? Charity will only last until the well runs dry.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#37)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:34:00 AM EST
    “A failure to address debt also signals a concommitant loss of confidence in the ability of the U.S. to repay those bonds.” I don’t think anyone is seriously concerned about default, particularly with the amount of US assets. “Rove said that deficits do not matter. A good statement as to the politics of the matter. A fiscally irresponsible presumption.” I agree. “This is a matter of confidence in the strength of the U.S. dollar,” I also agree; I was just pointing out a strange tone in the posts here. On a thread decrying budget cuts I find general condemnation of deficits. Are you all saying that there weren’t enough cuts? Fine with me, cuts across the board.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:38:39 AM EST
    “Rove said that deficits do not matter. A good statement as to the politics of the matter. A fiscally irresponsible presumption.” Actually, Cheney said this.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#39)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:38:53 AM EST
    Nikki- I don’t understand your point. If miraculously everyone was significantly poorer tomorrow than they are today there will still be a disparity. I imagine those folks that are not as poor will feel compelled to give to those that are poorer. Unless.., could we just outlaw poverty?

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#40)
    by soccerdad on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:52:18 AM EST
    The privalged few are those who obtain giant tax cuts not only from wages but more so from cuts in capital gains, dividends etc. We all got a little from the former, but relatively few benefit in a substantial way from the later. And as the cost of medical care, education continue to increase the effects will be greater on the middle class since they will have a much smaller margin with which to absorb those increases. If you guys are happy with the table scraps you are being thrown while the upper class and corporations no longer pull their proportionate weight thats fine, but I'm not.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:53:06 AM EST
    pigwiggle, The kindness of one's friends and neighbors will be extended only to the point of where they feel their own welfare is endangered. If this world truly revolved on the generosity of one's neighbors, there would be very little poverty. But that's not how it works. In fact, pigwiggle, the current state of conservatism is a perfect example of how reliable is the kindness of friends and neighbors. You don't want your tax dollars spent on social programs. Ok, but if your immediate friends & neighbors are bringing home 6 figure salaries with full benefits, there is no need for your neighborhood to even contemplate charity. But if my friends & neighbors are working 2 and 3 minimum wage or part-time jobs, no benefits at any of them, obviously there is not enough in the community for the basics of life much less charity. Social programs go a long way to alleviating the conditions in my community, but your community is upset because that's money going out of your pocket into a community that you have absolutely no contact with. So, lets kill the social programs! But, pigwiggle, there are many more communities like mine than there are yours.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#42)
    by soccerdad on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:57:17 AM EST
    I think a lot of us are angry about the deficits since they were caused in large part by the war and tax cuts which favored the rich. Now having done that, Bush is going to dismantle the safety net for the less well to do. So he creates the deficits by predominately helping the rich and the corps and is now going to solve the problem by screwing the low and middle class. Byt, hey, that was probably the plan all together. But to people like pig its everyman for themselves. If you have a problem its your fault so screw you.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    Nikki - Thanks for the correction. They all begin to sound alike. Pigwiggle - The background briefing prior to the SOTU actually did contain a referrence to the fact that the trust bonds would not be redeemed because the program was (and had been for some time) a "pay as you go" program. Now, I do not see the government giving every citizen a refund of past paid FICA. The trust bonds are effectively defaulted since future payouts would come from current revenue and private contribution, The kindness of strangers and charity sounded really great in the day of barn raising and small communities. It does not work today. It is amazing that conservatives decry SS because it does not recognize the realities of the 21st century. Now we are to believe that neighbors helping neighbors as in the 18th and 19th centuries will do the job. Not very likely. Society is too large and the problems too complex.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#44)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:14:40 AM EST
    “Social programs go a long way to alleviating the conditions in my community, but your community is upset because that's money going out of your pocket into a community that you have absolutely no contact with. So, lets kill the social programs! … But, pigwiggle, there are many more communities like mine than there are yours.” First, I find it interesting that you immediately assume you make less than I do or live in a crappier town simply because I am in favor of privatized charity. From this years W2, $21,530; now you don’t need to guess. Second, I don’t need to live in a crappy part of town to know its there. Here is a list of 64 countries that had a per capita yearly income 3 times LESS than my income tax this year. Using the full force and violence of the federal government to confiscate my money for redistribution saves you the inconvenience of convincing me you need my charity more than these folks.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#45)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    “But to people like pig its everyman for themselves. If you have a problem it’s your fault so screw you.” Man, you are a freakin brick wall.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#46)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:22:50 AM EST
    “Now we are to believe that neighbors helping neighbors as in the 18th and 19th centuries will do the job. Not very likely. Society is too large and the problems too complex.” I think the vast proliferation of NGOs operating worldwide, even in war zones, stands in contradiction.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:29:13 AM EST
    Using the full force and violence of the federal government to confiscate my money for redistribution saves you the inconvenience of convincing me you need my charity more than these folks. Yup, and that's the way I like it! Now if we could only get them to distribute equitably each and every time, my cup would overflow.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:41:40 AM EST
    Pigwiggle: Which NGO's are you speaking of? Disaster relief? Most of these organizations swing into action only after thousands have have been reduced to poor health by malnutrition and scores have died. They are usually limited in scope as to what they can do. Here is the challenge: NAME TWO NGO'S THAT PROVIDE SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS ON A SUSTAINED LONG TERM BASIS. How many of them are even dedicated to solving problems in the United States. Oh, I get the idea. Wait until a substantial number of our citizens live in third world poverty with no quality of life, living in shanty towns, have extreme infant mortality and reduced life spans. We can then do something about the problem. The fact is that in the past people felt a connection to one another that we do not have today because communities were small and people felt a personal responsibility towards one another that is not felt today.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#49)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:07:09 AM EST
    “Pigwiggle: Which NGO's are you speaking of?” NGOs exist to fill a need not as a redundancy. The point; there are organizations competent to respond to, as you put it, complex problems of society. For example, it isn’t unreasonable to imagine one or several organizations running a program similar to the USDA food stamp program from individual donations. There is nothing unique about government. “Oh, I get the idea. Wait until a substantial number of our citizens live in third world poverty with no quality of life, living in shanty towns, have extreme infant mortality and reduced life spans. We can then do something about the problem.” Exactly!? “The fact is that in the past people felt a connection to one another that we do not have today because communities were small and people felt a personal responsibility towards one another that is not felt today.” This may or may not be true. However, I am certain that folks feel compelled to do charity; if they didn’t the federal government wouldn’t do it, you know, democracy and all. The demand and the revenue exist in spite of the government, not because of it.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:35:13 AM EST
    soccerdad..... didn't massive tax cuts for the rich happen in there? I've seen you complain about this several times now & was just wondering.... What do you consider 'rich'? I do make a 6 figure salery, but certainly don't consider myself rich. Maybe upper middle class, but not rich. I paid over $60K in taxes in 2003 (Yes that's $60,000 +) which is probaly more than most people who frequent this site make in a year. I, for one, see nothing wrong with GW wanting to give me back a couple of $K? Do you? I think I paid MORE than my share in. Let's face it Soccerdad, the tax laws in this counrty aren't fair. Why should I pay 33% of my income in taxes and you don't? The only FAIR way to do this is a flat tax where EVERYONE pays in a percetage (15%?) of what they make period!

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#51)
    by soccerdad on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    BB what was your actual rate? Most people who are in the mid to upper 6 figure range rarely pay that stated rate because of tax shelters etc. This is assuming that you count all forms of income as taxable. Anybody making over 200k is rich IMO. But people are never rich enough are they? Need a bigger house more cars etc. FYi I make 6 figures also Of course you would like a flat tax because in general a flat tax (without any exceptions)is very regressive, and impacts the poor most. Why shouldn't the rich pay a little more, since they are getting a bigger share of the benefits of society.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#52)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:14:37 PM EST
    “The only FAIR way to do this is a flat tax where EVERYONE pays in a percetage (15%?) of what they make period!” The only fair tax is one where folks pay for that portion of the public infrastructure they use.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:39:28 PM EST
    Income is income is income. Whether gained by manual labor or selling stock, it should be taxed equally. But it isn't.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:45:07 PM EST
    Soccerdad: Show me a corporation that pays taxes. If they do pay taxes it is passed on to the consumers as increased costs for goods. The best way to handle that would be for a consumption tax instead of an income tax. That would be excellent. Nikki: How do you know where or how pigwiggle and his or her neighbors live? I would bet it is the other way around, you a limosine liberal and pig a small businessperson.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:47:39 PM EST
    pigwiggle.... The only fair tax is one where folks pay for that portion of the public infrastructure they use. Infastructure.... by that you mean roads, trains ...etc?... or do you mean other things like government agencies? In either case, once again i think the poor use these things more than the rich do, and most are subsidized by taxes anyway.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#57)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:51:23 PM EST
    “Infastructure.... by that you mean roads, trains ...etc?... or do you mean other things like government agencies?” Anything currently supported by taxes.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:03:59 PM EST
    Soccerdad: People have a real problem with perception in this society. First, many people who would actually rank in the top 5% of income producing families believe that they are only middle class. Someone paying $60k+ in income tax would actually fall within the top 3% of income producing families. Since these people have a totally false perception of reality, they are unable to relate to those who actually are middle class or in poverty. These wealthy individuals assume that those who are poor really do not suffer (or at the best suffer merely because they are too lazy to accomplish more.) These affluent people also lack the basis to understand the true squeeze on the middle class or how close some of these people are from destitution. Second, we have a very wrong impression as to what tax burdens really are. The conservatives love to compare marginal tax rates. Very few of the affluent actually come close to these marginal rates. It is more important to look at effective tax rates. Remember the actual rate of tax paid per dollar of income is greatly reduced by the time that you get through deductions. (E.g. mortgage interest on the main home and vacation home, tax sheltered income, and (my favorite from my old corporate days) deferred compensation. One must also factor in regressive payroll taxes as well as state and local taxes. No, there is only slight progressivity left in the system by the time that these are included. Lastly, there are those who seem to believe that money is everything. They believe that they have proven their value in society by noting the great amount of taxes that they have paid and by pointing out how the majority of the "little" people who make comments to this site probably don't make as much as he does.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:40:54 PM EST
    Pigwiggle writes: However, I am certain that folks feel compelled to do charity; if they didn’t the federal government wouldn’t do it Actually, not that many folks feel compelled to do charity, pigwiggle. If that was true England, France and Russia would still be "Benevolent" Monarchies and no one would know who Charles Dickens was. People with your views are my worst nightmares of privatized charity because of the need to humiliate me with your judgment of whether I am both needy and deserving enough for you. (But you knew that already, pigwiggle). If you could show me that working folks like you and me wouldn't get stiffed any more than we are now I might think differently.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:21:34 PM EST
    B.B., are you including state, local, sales and other taxes in your 32%? I would figure you're paying much more.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#62)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:22:59 PM EST
    “Actually, not that many folks feel compelled to do charity, pigwiggle.” Since both federal and state legislators legislate charity, and since they are democratically elected, it is safe to say at least 51% of folks are compelled to do charity and further compel their legislators to do it as well. But you and I know that nearly everyone is charitable, be it through his or her church or elsewhere. “People with your views are my worst nightmares of privatized charity because of the need to humiliate me with your judgment of whether I am both needy and deserving enough for you.” I can understand this. I’ve been giving your coffee habit some thought; one cup five times a week for a year, that’s over $500. The per capita income for a Haitian, $300; that one single discretion is very nearly the average yearly income for those living in the 50 poorest nations. It isn’t a humiliation of my making; but rest assured there would be plenty of folks willing to give you much without asking anything of you. “If that was true England, France and Russia would still be "Benevolent" Monarchies and no one would know who Charles Dickens was.” And before Dickens and monarchies life was also brutal and short, perhaps more brutal and even shorter. Your expectations are keeping pace with the general afluence; well, at least the afluence here in the US.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#65)
    by soccerdad on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:59:33 PM EST
    J. Mohr - was that supposed to be directed at BB or me? if its me I'm confused

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#66)
    by jerry on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:29:32 AM EST
    First term: Run the country into the ground. Second term: shovel the dirt in on the rubble. Now that he's been re-appointed, he has a free hand to finish us off. Radical republicans coupled with do nothing Democrats=America in the dumpster.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:08:25 AM EST
    Soccerdad: Directed to BB. My mistake at the end of a long day.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:28:24 AM EST
    J Mohr - Good morning. All this "poor" talk by you folks reminds me of the fact that when I was a boy, we were so poor that when my Mother would throw out a chicken bone the dog would have to signal for a fair catch. Actually my Father was a sharecropper, who became a landowner with a peaceful and happy retirement through education, sacrifice and hardwork. So I have seen both the benefits of government programs, and the down side. When you write, "You also received a benefit of reducing your total tax burden by 6.2% once you exceeded $87k in earnings..." what you are really saying is that the government decided not to tax you. This appears to be trending towards 100% government ownership. i.e. We'll let you keep... I trust you didn't mean that. Your point regarding effective versus marginal tax rates is true, until the tax payer has taken the maximum deductions. At that point the marginal rate is the tax rate on all further income. And lest we forget, there is the Alternative Minimum Tax that limits the total deuctions taken from Adjusted Gross Income, as well as income level adjustments for total deductions and individual deductions. Fairness may be debated, but a family of four making around $38,000 pays no FIT. Which makes perfect sense when you consider the top 5% pays 52% of ... oops. The White House announced ysterday, that despite the tax cuts that favored the rich, the top 5% now pay 54% of FIT. Now let me see. Their taxes were cut, but they are paying more. Could it be that the cuts stimulated the economy?

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#69)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:17:00 AM EST
    There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
    The White House announced ysterday, that despite the tax cuts that favored the rich, the top 5% now pay 54% of FIT. Now let me see. Their taxes were cut, but they are paying more. Could it be that the cuts stimulated the economy?
    54% of the total does not mean they were paying more. Total tax receipts were down, so they were still paying less with the increase from 52 to 54%. Of course the top pay the most taxes thats were the income is, they control an enormous part of wealth. The correct question is what was their effective tax rate based on all income. The anemic job growth and small increase in real wages for most workers indicate the stimulation of the economy has been very mild.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 10:16:32 AM EST
    SD - 54% versus 52% is an increase, oh math challenged one. But you know, why don't you just send a check if you think your FIT is too low. I encourge you to put your money where your mouth is. Go ahead. Do it!

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:00:01 PM EST
    SD - Nice subject change. The issue is what percentage of taxes do the top 5% pay, The answer is, 54%, up from 52%. And remember that family of 4 not pay FIT on income of around $38K? It was around $36K until the tax cuts. Got logic?

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    Gasp - That's DA! Hard to tell you guys apart.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#74)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:14:51 PM EST
    “Of course the top pay the most taxes thats were the income is, they control an enormous part of wealth.” Wealth, like the national forest or the airwaves, is just another public resource to folks like SD; it is to be controlled, harvested, distributed. Да, comrade?

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#75)
    by john horse on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    Jim, One thing I've learned to do is to ask you to provide links whenever you make any "factual" points. However, lets assume you are right. Can it be that the rich's share of the total taxes paid is due to the fact that their share of the nation's total wealth has increased. If their share of the total wealth has increased, then doesn't it mean that the share of the middle class and poor has decreased?

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#76)
    by john horse on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:00:26 PM EST
    Under Clinton we had a budget surplus. Can anyone explain why we now have record budget deficits under Bush and the Republicans. When they cut taxes for the rich, they claimed that this would stimulate investment and job growth and that as a result of this economic growth the funds that would be lost by the tax cuts would be offset. Hasn't quite happened according to plan, has it?

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#77)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:12:20 PM EST
    “Under Clinton we had a budget surplus. Can anyone explain why we now have record budget deficits under Bush and the Republicans.” We had a projected budget surplus, which reflected revenue that hadn’t necessarily been collected. The economy tanked due to an overvaluation of tech. companies quickly followed by an attack on the world trade center and pentagon. Projected revenues went the way of the economy. Don’t take this as an apology for the liberal spending the president has indulged in, simply an explanation for the absence of the surplus. Don’t fool yourself, a democratic president/congress would have spent the surplus just as quickly, albeit on other things, necessitating deficits in the soft economy.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#78)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:21:23 PM EST
    Don’t fool yourself, a democratic president/congress would have spent the surplus just as quickly, albeit on other things, necessitating deficits in the soft economy.
    Of course this ignores the fact that Clinton got rid of the deficits and it was the Republicans who did away with the pay as you go provisions that had been put in place by Clinton and the fiscal conservatives Repubs and Dems.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#79)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:24:23 PM EST
    PPJ you are as dishonest as always you said Now let me see. Their taxes were cut, but they are paying more You didn't say paying a higher percentage, you said paying more which is obviously incorrect. The public education has failed you once again.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#80)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:27:20 PM EST
    pig wrote
    Wealth, like the national forest or the airwaves, is just another public resource to folks like SD; it is to be controlled, harvested, distributed. Да, comrade?
    The old can't counter the argument so make up a straw man to attack the messenger. Up to your usual tricks, I see.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#81)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:02:50 PM EST
    “The old can't counter the argument so make up a straw man to attack the messenger. Up to your usual tricks, I see.” I wasn’t countering any argument, as we weren’t arguing; simply trying to point out one fundamental difference we have. I thought it was a fair characterization, based on impressions from several of our exchanges. One I am surprised you disagreed with, save the snide comrade remark. But speaking of usual tricks…

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:24:05 PM EST
    Hard to tell you guys apart Yes, letting your adrenal glands, not your prefrontal lobes, be in control of your fingers isn't always a good thing, eh............?

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#83)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    John Horse - Repeat after me: The internet bubble burst in 2000. The internet bubble burst in 2000. 9/11 9/11 9/11 You now know all you need to know about what happened to the "surplus." Said surplus, BTW included SS funds put in the General Fund. SD, or DA, whichever - I said: "that despite the tax cuts that favored the rich, the top 5% now pay 54% of FIT. Now let me see. Their taxes were cut, but they are paying more. Could it be that the cuts stimulated the economy?" First, what tax year are you speaking of? And are you claiming that revenues declined? If so, what year and how much? And if so, was that enough for the 5% payers to over come the lower end cuts? I mean, if you talk mumbo jumbo....

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#84)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:23:09 PM EST
    Pig its an empty and untrue accusation which you are aware of. You can't carry on the discussion can't refute anything i said so you make up crap to attack me. If you honestly think thats my position then you are plain stupid. But I'll vote for dishonest and a coward. I'd like to see you call me a communist to my face.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#85)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:06:31 PM EST
    “You can't carry on the discussion can't refute anything i said so you make up crap to attack me.” Oh, like ‘moving goalposts’, ‘strawman’, ‘coward’, and so forth; a frustration I am particularly familiar with. “If you honestly think thats my position then you are plain stupid. But I'll vote for dishonest and a coward.” Speaking of mischaracterizations; reminds me of a previous exchange in this post…. ““But to people like pig its everyman for themselves. If you have a problem it’s your fault so screw you.” Man, you are a freakin brick wall.” But speaking of cowardice … “I'd like to see you call me a communist to my face.” Huh… faux redneck; ridiculous. What, want to give me a ‘knuckle sandwich’, soccerdad? Again, ridiculous.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#86)
    by john horse on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:31:55 PM EST
    Pig, re: "We had a projected budget surplus (under Clinton), which reflected revenue that hadn’t necessarily been collected." What have you been smoking? According to the OMB, there was a surplus under Clinton (go to Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government). Heres a simple chart from NPR based on the OMB data. Maybe you've also forgotten that Bush's original arguement for the tax cut was based on the budget surplus. Jim, I think the stock market crash caused major economic problems. 9/11 caused problems for specific industries, such as the airline industry, but its economic impact on the nation was minor. In any case, according to Bush those days are behind us. According to Bush, we are in a robust recovery. If Bush is right, then you can no longer use the stock market and 9/11 as excuses.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#87)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:40:56 PM EST
    pig - you're a little man with no ideas. You resort to the usual tricks. You're just more intelligent than most which makes it all the more pathetic. And as usual just like ppj you can dish it out but can't take it. All so predictable and boring.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#88)
    by john horse on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 08:06:34 PM EST
    soccerdad, I disagree with pig quite a bit (see post above) but I try not to take anything personally. To give Pig and Jim a left-handed compliment, they are not wrong all the time, only most of the time.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#89)
    by john horse on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 08:17:53 PM EST
    pig, re: "The economy tanked due to an overvaluation of tech. companies quickly followed by an attack on the world trade center and pentagon. Projected revenues went the way of the economy." Not true, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute. (methodology is between Figure 4 and Figure 5). A good analysis of Bush's budget proposal is this one from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#90)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:05:17 AM EST
    “What have you been smoking? According to the OMB, there was a surplus under Clinton” This is most certainly true, a more accurate look at the actual surpluses can be had here from the congressional budget office. However what I said was … “We had a projected budget surplus (under Clinton), which reflected revenue that hadn’t necessarily been collected.” President Clinton left something in the neighborhood of ~$80 billion unspent when he left office. If you are asking where this specific surplus went; well, it mostly went to a large tax cut. However, when folks ask where the surpluses have gone I assume they are talking of the projected surpluses of President Clinton’s fy2000 budget. This budget projected huge surpluses for the next four years (2000-2004) based on projected yearly GDP that didn’t come anywhere close to realized GDP for those years. President Clinton’s budget team was so bold as to project surpluses for the next 50 years. This was his selling point for using the surplus to put Social Security back in balance. Either way the money would have been spent and we would be in the red today; you know the saying, don’t count your chickens. If I had my way senator Kerry would be in office today, a reflection of the Clinton years; a divided and partisan congress opposed to the president, gridlock. Gridlock is the best I can hope for as things stand.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#91)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:26:30 AM EST
    John- I have placed a chart detailing the difference (in billions) in Clinton’s fy2000 revenues and actual revenues (blue line) and Clinton’s fy2000 projected outlays and actual outlays (pink) here . You can see President Clinton over projected by much, understandably so, and President Bush overspent by much, not so easy to understand. I’ll take it down soon if the bandwidth gets out of hand.

    Re: Bush Budget Cuts (none / 0) (#92)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:28:05 AM EST
    SD- “pig - you're a little man with no ideas.” I like this side of you, I think I’ll call it hockeydad.

    Bush Budget Cuts | 87 comments (87 topical)