White House Budget Cuts

[pbslmo]

White House Details Programs to Be Cut By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 40 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The White House Thursday sent lawmakers details of the 141 programs that President Bush wants to eliminate or significantly cut to save taxpayers almost $15 billion.

Bush wants to build upon the success he had last year in killing 89 programs costing $6.5 billion, but most of this year's proposed cuts were rejected by lawmakers last year and likely will be again. Of 91 programs slated to get killed altogether, to save $7.3 billion, only 16 are new proposals.

The programs slated for elimination are congressional favorites funded through annual appropriations bills. Programs on the chopping block include $3.5 billion from the Department of Education, including grants for safe and drug free schools, vocational education grants and arcane programs such as the "Exchanges With Historic Whaling and Trading Partners" program.

Another 50 programs are slated for large cuts but not outright elimination, for savings of $7.4 billion. They include cuts of $394 million from Amtrak subsidies, $694 million from Department of Homeland Security grants and training programs and an almost 25 percent cut from construction funding for Indian Schools.

The White House said the programs on its ambitious list are those "not getting results or not fulfilling essential priorities."

I cannot believe that now BuSh wants to cut education, but most importantly FUNDS FOR HOMELAND SECURITY? Isn't he the one who started this program? Won't this make our country more vulnerable? Now who is giving Terrorists information?

 

[MrWilson]

White House Details Programs to Be Cut By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 40 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The White House Thursday sent lawmakers details of the 141 programs that President Bush wants to eliminate or significantly cut to save taxpayers almost $15 billion.

Bush wants to build upon the success he had last year in killing 89 programs costing $6.5 billion, but most of this year's proposed cuts were rejected by lawmakers last year and likely will be again. Of 91 programs slated to get killed altogether, to save $7.3 billion, only 16 are new proposals.

The programs slated for elimination are congressional favorites funded through annual appropriations bills. Programs on the chopping block include $3.5 billion from the Department of Education, including grants for safe and drug free schools, vocational education grants and arcane programs such as the "Exchanges With Historic Whaling and Trading Partners" program.

Another 50 programs are slated for large cuts but not outright elimination, for savings of $7.4 billion. They include cuts of $394 million from Amtrak subsidies, $694 million from Department of Homeland Security grants and training programs and an almost 25 percent cut from construction funding for Indian Schools.

The White House said the programs on its ambitious list are those "not getting results or not fulfilling essential priorities."

I cannot believe that now BuSh wants to cut education, but most importantly FUNDS FOR HOMELAND SECURITY? Isn't he the one who started this program? Won't this make our country more vulnerable? Now who is giving Terrorists information?

If you can post more valid information regarding the cuts i might be ears, but untill you do its just more spin commin from left field. For all you know that homeland defence cut might be that they are no longer getting the guard dogs chrome water bowls, and switching to plastic bowls.

 

[pbslmo]

If you can post more valid information regarding the cuts i might be ears, but untill you do its just more spin commin from left field. For all you know that homeland defence cut might be that they are no longer getting the guard dogs chrome water bowls, and switching to plastic bowls.

Mr Wilson sir, I copied this for posting right from my SBC Yahoo home page. I agree it did not detail the cuts, but none the less they are cutting budgets left and right. Cutting Student loans also.

 

[MrWilson]

Mr Wilson sir, I copied this for posting right from my SBC Yahoo home page. I agree it did not detail the cuts, but none the less they are cutting budgets left and right. Cutting Student loans also.

Well what do you want, outragious funding for the victims of the hurricanes, or your social programs funded? You have to be able to ballance the federal budget, so to speek, just because they print the money doesnt mean they have unlimited money. (i dont get any student loans myself, so im not too worried )

 

[pbslmo]

Well what do you want, outragious funding for the victims of the hurricanes, or your social programs funded? You have to be able to ballance the federal budget, so to speek, just because they print the money doesnt mean they have unlimited money. (i dont get any student loans myself, so im not too worried )

I don't have any kids myself, but I do want intellegent individuals to lead in the future. The way tuition rates are skyrocketing, the kids need those loans. I believe in a blanced budget also. But we need to really acess the spending in other "pork-barrrel" items. We (americans) had a nest egg, now it is drained and then some. What is the interest rate on the deficit?

 

[MonsterMark]

I don't have any kids myself, but I do want intellegent individuals to lead in the future. The way tuition rates are skyrocketing, the kids need those loans. I believe in a blanced budget also. But we need to really acess the spending in other "pork-barrrel" items. We (americans) had a nest egg, now it is drained and then some. What is the interest rate on the deficit?

If the Clinton admistration produced SURPLUSES, please post them. I am not interested in seeing the PROJECTED surpluses. 9/11 took care of those.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Is this what you are talking about?

First graph shows the national debt adjusted for 2000 $s. Note that while in non-adjusted-for-inflation dollars (not shown), the real debt in plain dollars did not go down during Clinton, however in inflation-adjusted dollars it did near the end of his administration.

The second graph is the national debt as a % of GDP, which is a more accurate and fair representation of the national debt vs the health of the economy. It is imposible to deny the obvious fact that repugs since Regan have been fiscally irresponsible, and that Clinton actually turned things around, only to be ruined by BuSh II. Yeah, yeah, I already know you RWWs are going to try to steal the credit from Clinton and give it to "the internet boom" of the '90s. OK, give Bill Gates some credit, but he doesn't sit in the oval office.

 

[MrWilson]

We (americans) had a nest egg, now it is drained and then some.

The problem is not that people cant afford to have a nest egg, its that they'd rather life in an unnatainable state of affulance (debt), rather than save for the future.

Is this what you are talking about?

First graph shows the national debt adjusted for 2000 $s. Note that while in non-adjusted-for-inflation dollars (not shown), the real debt in plain dollars did not go down during Clinton, however in inflation-adjusted dollars it did near the end of his administration.

The second graph is the national debt as a % of GDP, which is a more accurate and fair representation of the national debt vs the health of the economy. It is imposible to deny the obvious fact that repugs since Regan have been fiscally irresponsible, and that Clinton actually turned things around, only to be ruined by BuSh II. Yeah, yeah, I already know you RWWs are going to try to steal the credit from Clinton and give it to "the internet boom" of the '90s. OK, give Bill Gates some credit, but he doesn't sit in the oval office.

Is it perhaps that $.50 in 1940 is = to $7 in 2005? I hear ya sayin that its not adjusted for inflation, but because it is not adjusted for inflation, it makes the graph meaningless. I could take a graph showing that a loaf of bread in 1940 cost $.05 and today $2.50 and to try to trick people into deducing that the marginal cost of bread has rissen, when it actually hasent.

As for the Debt-GDP chart, not that im discounting it, but where does it come from whitehouse.gov, or zfacts.com?
Also, look at the chart closely, you will notice that 1/2 of the charted increase in debt is predicted, and that as of that chart's last update, Bush is still onlyup 5% over what clinton "accomplished". Also take into consideration the terrorist attacks, the wars, and the recent devastating hurricane season, and their affect on the economy.(and that those elements were not present during the last administration)

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Is it perhaps that $.50 in 1940 is = to $7 in 2005? I hear ya sayin that its not adjusted for inflation, but because it is not adjusted for inflation, it makes the graph meaningless. I could take a graph showing that a loaf of bread in 1940 cost $.05 and today $2.50 and to try to trick people into deducing that the marginal cost of bread has rissen, when it actually hasent.

The graph I showed IS adjusted for inflation, had I shown the "non-inflation-adjusted" data, it would show that the debt (in raw, non-inflation-adjusted dollars) increased monotonically thru the Clinton years (which was the point Bryan was making). In other words, I'd have to intentionally, and unfairly distort the data in order to make the claim Bryan is making.

As for the Debt-GDP chart, not that im discounting it, but where does it come from whitehouse.gov, or zfacts.com?
Also, look at the chart closely, you will notice that 1/2 of the charted increase in debt is predicted, and that as of that chart's last update, Bush is still onlyup 5% over what clinton "accomplished". Also take into consideration the terrorist attacks, the wars, and the recent devastating hurricane season, and their affect on the economy.(and that those elements were not present during the last administration)

Zfacts.com. I'll give you the point on 9/11 and the wars, but real data portion of the graph is historical, prior to Katrina/Rita. And it's not like there weren't big hurricanes and earthquakes during the '90s. Also, by plotting this as a % of GDP, it effectivly nulls out fluctuations caused by ups-and-downs in the economy.

I'll give some credit to BuSh for at least beginning to round-out the top if his increase, however I'm not sure if I approve where he is making all his cuts or where he is proposing increases in the budjet.

 

[pbslmo]

I agree it is not about reducing the budget; it is about who it will affect: Low/lower, middle income workers, the disabled, elderly, and veterans.

We are all just an accident away from disability. If you happen to be wealthy then there is no problem 'until' your money starts to dwindle away. As BuSh said in his State of The Union speech, He and Bill Clinton start receiving Social Security. Do you think either of them needs it? NO. They both have healthy pensions. But if you’re a low or middle income worker you’re hurting. That’s all you have. Capping Social Security and SSI while raising Medicare rates do not help individuals who have certain medical needs. Cost of medications not covered by health Insurance drains incomes, to line the pocket of insurance co and Pharmaceutics co.

 

[MonsterMark]

In other words, I'd have to intentionally, and unfairly distort the data in order to make the claim Bryan is making.

Maybe this will help to 'educate' you. A story about the Clinton adminstration of the lies they told but were not reported.

SMOKE & MIRRORS

The Budget Surplus That Does Not Exist

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm

 

[97silverlsc]

When will the RWW on this site stop pointing the finger elsewhere everytime there is valid criticism of the current administration? Your time to bitch about bubba was when he was in office. He's not anymore. We are dealing with the here and now. You all sound like little children when you respond to criticism of Shrub by posting articles and saying "bubba did it" or "JFK did it". Grow up. Address the current concerns!!

The savings are on paper only and disappear when you consider he is raising the pentagons budget by about 40 billion, not to mention that they don't include spending on the Afghan and Iraq activities in the budget. That adds another 120 billion. But he's still pushing to make the tax cuts permanent. Obviously not an economics major in college.

 

[MonsterMark]

When will the RWW on this site stop pointing the finger elsewhere everytime there is valid criticism of the current administration? Your time to bitch about bubba was when he was in office. He's not anymore. We are dealing with the here and now. You all sound like little children when you respond to criticism of Shrub by posting articles and saying "bubba did it" or "JFK did it". Grow up. Address the current concerns!!

The savings are on paper only and disappear when you consider he is raising the pentagons budget by about 40 billion, not to mention that they don't include spending on the Afghan and Iraq activities in the budget. That adds another 120 billion. But he's still pushing to make the tax cuts permanent. Obviously not an economics major in college.

We are simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left. I know for sure that if we were having these discussions about Clinton, you guys would be on the exact opposite side from where you are now.

At least now I know where Kerry and Gore developed their flip/flopping skills.

 

[fossten]

When will the RWW on this site stop pointing the finger elsewhere everytime there is valid criticism of the current administration? Your time to bitch about bubba was when he was in office. He's not anymore. We are dealing with the here and now. You all sound like little children when you respond to criticism of Shrub by posting articles and saying "bubba did it" or "JFK did it". Grow up. Address the current concerns!!

The savings are on paper only and disappear when you consider he is raising the pentagons budget by about 40 billion, not to mention that they don't include spending on the Afghan and Iraq activities in the budget. That adds another 120 billion. But he's still pushing to make the tax cuts permanent. Obviously not an economics major in college.

The key to your argument is "valid criticism."

So far, all I've heard are conjured-up ad hominem, baseless prevarications and allegations. Nothing valid. Until that starts happening, you will continue to get it shoved back into your faces.

Deal with it. Grow up yourself and stick to the facts FOR A CHANGE.

 

[MrWilson]

The graph I showed IS adjusted for inflation, had I shown the "non-inflation-adjusted" data, it would show that the debt (in raw, non-inflation-adjusted dollars) increased monotonically thru the Clinton years (which was the point Bryan was making). In other words, I'd have to intentionally, and unfairly distort the data in order to make the claim Bryan is making.

Im sorry, i misread your words, i thought you said it was NOT adjusted for inflation.

Also, i got a quick question...mabey its stupid but its just interesting to me. Why does everyone spell bush: BuSh, with the cap. S?

 

[fossten]

Im sorry, i misread your words, i thought you said it was NOT adjusted for inflation.

Also, i got a quick question...mabey its stupid but its just interesting to me. Why does everyone spell bush: BuSh, with the cap. S?

The left wing wacko Bush-haters on this site use that to represent Bull Sh!*, which is an immature, underhanded, inaccurate, disrespectful slam at Bush's credibility, as though he lied about WMDs, which we ALL know isn't even true.

 

[MrWilson]

The left wing wacko Bush-haters on this site use that to represent Bull Sh!*, which is an immature, underhanded, inaccurate, disrespectful slam at Bush's credibility, as though he lied about WMDs, which we ALL know isn't even true.

Here, Here

 

[ToddG]

I cannot believe that now BuSh wants to cut education, but most importantly FUNDS FOR HOMELAND SECURITY? Isn't he the one who started this program? Won't this make our country more vulnerable? Now who is giving Terrorists information?

Let's inject a little sanity here. On the budget "cuts", these are not cuts at all, but rather a slowing in the growth of spending. Washington uses a concept called "baseline budgeting" which means that each year, various spending on government programs increases by a certain amount (say 5% just to pick a number). These increases were put in place long ago by previous Congresses and previous administrations. However, when the annual budget is worked out, the present administration decides it does not want to increase overall spending by 5% but would rather do only 3%. The reduction of increased spending from 5% to 3% is called a "cut", only in the sense that spending is not as great as was originally intended. However, the TOTAL DOLLARS spent is still INCREASED over the previous year (in my example, 3%). Whenever I hear that spending is being "cut", I always know more money IS being spent, just not at the level it was originally envisioned based on Washington semantics. The press, however, simply use the word "cut" and leave the impression that total dollars spent on specific programs is actually less than the previous year, which is not true.

Secondly, the Clinton surpluses and a bit of history. In 1986, President Reagan led the charge to reduce taxes across the board and Congress passed legislation to do that. Reduced taxation levels resulted in a high level of economic activity in the following years, which in turn resulted in a large influx of money to the federal treasury (yes, its true, lower taxes INCREASES money to the federal treasury). When Clinton came into office in 1993, he was ready, willing, and able to spend this increased cash (remember Hillarycare?), but in 1994, control of Congress switched from the Democrats to the Republicans. The Republicans, now in control of the House (where all spending bills start), did not spend the surplus, despite President Clinton's desire to do so. I'll give Clinton credit for not screwing up a good thing, but it is false to give him credit for creating the surpluses. That credit rightly goes to Reagan for cutting taxes in the first place without which the surpluses would never have materialized.