[LordOpie]

At what point do you become concerned with the budget situation?

White House raising estimated cost of Medicare overhaul by about one-third

President Bush's new budget will project that the just-enacted prescription drug program and Medicare overhaul will cost one-third more than previously estimated and will predict a deficit exceeding $500 billion for this year, congressional aides said Thursday.

Instead of a $400 billion 10-year price tag, Bush's 2005 budget will estimate the Medicare bill's cost at about $540 billion, said aides who spoke on condition of anonymity. Bush will submit on Monday a federal budget for the fiscal year 2005, which starts next Oct. 1.
moreL]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/29/national1328EST0604.DTL

 

[valve bouncer]

But..but...but...but......Iraq's free man.

 

[stevew]

Since when does anything come in at the projected cost?

 

[JRogers]

Originally posted by LordOpie
At what point do you become concerned with the budget situation?

Now?

I am no supporter of Bush. The man is spending way more than we are taking (raking?) in. Who does he think he is, a democrat?

 

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by LordOpie
At what point do you become concerned with the budget situation?

I have reached the point of concern. Anyone who is not concerned has their head in the sand.

I voted for him in 2000. I am undecided thus far for 2004. My confidence in this administration is shaky at best.

 

[Westy]

I was a Bush supporter a long long time ago. But the current spending practices are just not Bush's The are several hundred Congressmen that have created and passed their own spending increases as well as the presidents. With the spinelessness of the democrats their seems to be no dissenting voice that is raises against this nonsense. Military spending went up dramatically and non military spending went up by 25% while taking a tax cut. I challenge anyone to manage their personal finances this way and not go bankrupt in a year. The government has taken out a several thousand dollar loan in the name of every American man woman and child. When these clowns are collecting their average $8,000,000.00 (average post retirement payment) in congressional pension checks we will be footing the bill. Some of this spending may have had some positive effects on the economy but it is a precarious (sp?) one. This overspending has shown weakness in the dollar which means inflation in rearing its ugly head, the fed will have to raise interest rates to combat this slowing down what economic prosperity there is.

This out of control spending is just going to make the next batch of politicians look like a$$holes. No one likes someone who cuts spending and raises taxes. And the huge amount of crusty old voters won't let their spending be cut. So the cuts will have to come from education, infrastructure etc etc. I almost want to see Bush stay in office so in a few years he gets to put out the fires he started.

 

[N8 v2.0]

It's Not Working!
Rushlimbaugh.com | January 29, 2004

On Thursday, I took two calls on the Bush proposal to increase the National Endowment for the Arts' budget. (See: Who Needs the NEA?) As part of his continuing strategy to peel off Democrat voters by growing government, Bush wants to force all of us to give the NEA $15 to $20 million in 2004. Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government will fund art? If we like it, we can fund it on our own.

I can only explain what I think is happening. I can't explain why the White House thinks their strategy is working when it's clearly not. Bush 41 didn't have a strategy, as one caller mentioned when comparing the two presidents. Bush 43 does - and I'm sad to say it's taken the shape of outspending Bill Clinton on the domestic side. This immigration bill and the $400 billion (Now $540b) Medicare entitlement makes conservative voters feel taken for granted.

The Big Theory, softening people's view of conservatism by making Americans work more for government and less for themselves, isn't working. How can it? If you act like a liberal to get Democrat votes, you can't do something conservative when you win without losing those new voters. Bush requested $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and let Ted Kennedy write an education bill that spent more on "the children" than ever, and they still rip him to shreds on those issues. You know, Republicans told us that we needed to give them control of the House, Senate and White House to get something done.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8
It's Not Working!
Rushlimbaugh.com | January 29, 2004

On Thursday, I took two calls on the Bush proposal to increase the National Endowment for the Arts' budget. (See: Who Needs the NEA?) As part of his continuing strategy to peel off Democrat voters by growing government, Bush wants to force all of us to give the NEA $15 to $20 million in 2004. Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government will fund art? If we like it, we can fund it on our own.

I can only explain what I think is happening. I can't explain why the White House thinks their strategy is working when it's clearly not. Bush 41 didn't have a strategy, as one caller mentioned when comparing the two presidents. Bush 43 does - and I'm sad to say it's taken the shape of outspending Bill Clinton on the domestic side. This immigration bill and the $400 billion (Now $540b) Medicare entitlement makes conservative voters feel taken for granted.

The Big Theory, softening people's view of conservatism by making Americans work more for government and less for themselves, isn't working. How can it? If you act like a liberal to get Democrat votes, you can't do something conservative when you win without losing those new voters. Bush requested $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and let Ted Kennedy write an education bill that spent more on "the children" than ever, and they still rip him to shreds on those issues. You know, Republicans told us that we needed to give them control of the House, Senate and White House to get something done.

Do you ever speak for yourself in your own words?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by DRB
Do you ever speak for yourself in your own words?

RM News Poster Replies
RideMonkey.com | 29.01.04 | Ben Dover

No

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by DRB
Do you ever speak for yourself in your own words?

He did once I think.....it wasn't a pleasant outcome for him.
Let me guess, his reply to this will be ...........

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by N8
It's Not Working!
Rushlimbaugh.com | January 29, 2004

N8, I am actually interested in your take on this topic. Could you post an idea or is you brain just packed full of news clips?

Edit: Damn someone beat me to it

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8
It's Not Working!
Rushlimbaugh.com | January 29, 2004

On Thursday, I took two calls on the Bush proposal to increase the National Endowment for the Arts' budget. (See: Who Needs the NEA?) As part of his continuing strategy to peel off Democrat voters by growing government, Bush wants to force all of us to give the NEA $15 to $20 million in 2004. Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government will fund art? If we like it, we can fund it on our own.

I can only explain what I think is happening. I can't explain why the White House thinks their strategy is working when it's clearly not. Bush 41 didn't have a strategy, as one caller mentioned when comparing the two presidents. Bush 43 does - and I'm sad to say it's taken the shape of outspending Bill Clinton on the domestic side. This immigration bill and the $400 billion (Now $540b) Medicare entitlement makes conservative voters feel taken for granted.

The Big Theory, softening people's view of conservatism by making Americans work more for government and less for themselves, isn't working. How can it? If you act like a liberal to get Democrat votes, you can't do something conservative when you win without losing those new voters. Bush requested $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and let Ted Kennedy write an education bill that spent more on "the children" than ever, and they still rip him to shreds on those issues. You know, Republicans told us that we needed to give them control of the House, Senate and White House to get something done.

I love this nonsense. The Democrats are tax and spend demons is what this is spouting. BUT it was Clinton, a democrat, that managed to build a surplus into the budget that was actually working on getting rid of the debt and providing funding for "surprises" such as 9-11. Bush, a Republican, has taken that surplus and turned it into the largest series of budget deficits we have ever seen.

The best part is that he is not getting any Democratic votes in doing so.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
He did once I think.....it wasn't a pleasant outcome for him.
Let me guess, his reply to this will be ...........

Yep... y'all are REALLY sharp as tacks. Vastly superior and educated in all things.

I am WAAAAAAAAAAAY scared to post my personal thoughts on here because I am SO intimated... and my feelings get all hurt and stuff.

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by N8
Yep... y'all are REALLY sharp as tacks. Vastly superior and educated in all things.

I am WAAAAAAAAAAAY scared to post my personal thoughts on here because I am SO intimated... and my feelings get all hurt and stuff.

Very true, and proven once again.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by N8
Yep... y'all are REALLY sharp as tacks. Vastly superior and educated in all things.

I am WAAAAAAAAAAAY scared to post my personal thoughts on here because I am SO intimated... and my feelings get all hurt and stuff.

N8 don't be everything is .

We are just wondering if you are about what debate is.

I you are neaky: and have
for you.


Seriously N8 what do you think. It doesn't have to be a fancy response.

Here is form you can use.

______________ is a big story today. Here is a link. Wow, isn't________________a compelling arguement for ______________to have done what they did?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Westy
Very true, and proven once again.

he's a partisan whore... you already know what he thinks.

If the Republicans keep going in this direction, they'll not only lose the presidency, but congress as well. I don't care enough about party politics, I'd rather the republicans act responsibly

I wonder what other governments think about our budget situation

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I'd rather the republicans act responsibly

Word.

I personally think that no government is likelty to act responsibly when the legislature is just a rubber stamp for the executive branch, it kills the checks and balances. Their needs to be a change in either the congress or the presidency. I would hate to see a strong Democratic congress and Presidency as much as I dislike the way things are today.[closes middle school government text]

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by ummbikes
N8 don't be everything is .

We are just wondering if you are about what debate is.

I you are neaky: and have
for you.


Seriously N8 what do you think. It doesn't have to be a fancy response.

Here is form you can use.

______________ is a big story today. Here is a link. Wow, isn't________________a compelling arguement for ______________to have done what they did?

ummbikes is now on smiley probation.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by DRB
ummbikes is now on smiley probation.

I have stop having a mocha and chocolate muffin for breakfast. That's all I can say about this...

 

[N8 v2.0]

I have neither the time nor the inclination to sit on RM and masterdebate all day.

I think it's intuitively obvious to the casual observer what my positions are and not one of you is going to change my leanings with your witty repertories and in-depth yammering.

I do comment occasionally, when I feel the need, otherwise I most enjoy posting (what I think to be) interesting newz/editorial selections and watching all of you 's comment on it since some of you are quite interesting. So think of me as a debate “voyeur" of sorts.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by N8
I have neither the time nor the inclination to sit on RM and masterdebate all day.

I think he is calling us jackoffs.:angry:

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by ummbikes
I think he is calling us jackoffs.:angry:

Hey, if the sock fits!!!!


BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!





:devil:

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by N8
I have neither the time nor the inclination to sit on RM and masterdebate all day.

I think it's intuitively obvious to the casual observer what my positions are and not one of you is going to change my leanings with your witty repertories and in-depth yammering.

I do comment occasionally, when I feel the need, otherwise I most enjoy posting (what I think to be) interesting newz/editorial selections and watching all of you 's comment on it since some of you are quite interesting. So think of me as a debate “voyeur" of sorts.

So basically you're like a eunuch at an orgy?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8

I think it's intuitively obvious to the casual observer what my positions are and not one of you is going to change my leanings with your witty repertories and in-depth yammering.

Normally I would accept this as your stance is not all that difficult to guess BUT on this particular issue where conservatives are splitting on Bush, a comment on your stance would be interesting IMHO.

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
So basically you're like a eunuch at an orgy?

It is always handy to have someone there to mop up the drippings.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Westy
It is always handy to have someone there to mop up the drippings.

N8 the Jizz Mopper? Mmmmmm does have quite a ring to it.

 

[N8 v2.0]

First and foremost I am a fiscal conservative and a pro military/defend US interests Republican. I do not support the Republican plank of religion and anti-abortion but these two planks in their platform generally do not deter me from voting along party lines ergo I do support Pres. Bush… but, I have to caveat my statement of support with this; I am greatly concerned about the spending proposals being presented by the President. Is it enough to keep me from voting for him? Probably not since the rate of spending can only be out done by any of the Democratic nominees.

But what about the Deficit?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I dunno...but after the first stab at my taxes last night...I think I wanna just tear up my social security card, sell all my shiznit, load the honda, and be a nomad.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
I dunno...but after the first stab at my taxes last night...I think I wanna just tear up my social security card, sell all my shiznit, load the honda, and be a nomad.

No sh!t!!! I paid over $10k in taxes already and it look like I still owe another $5-6k....

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by N8
Is it enough to keep me from voting for him? Probably not since the rate of spending can only be out done by any of the Democratic nominees.

typical response from a partisan whore. When in doubt, slam the other side

Look, a Dem *may* spend more -- tho at this point they'd be hard pressed to compete with this admin -- but the dems atleast tax people so the whole thing doesn't get stupid.

Bush is taking the worst of both parties... spending without taxation.

 

[N8 v2.0]

The problem is that a Dem president would be spending at the same rate or greater while hamstringing the defense of the nation.

You liberal girlies are acting like Deficit Spending is a new phenomenon...

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by N8
First and foremost I am a fiscal conservative. I do not support the Republican plank of religion and anti-abortion but these two planks in their platform generally do not deter me from voting along party lines ergo I do support Pres. Bush… but, I have to caveat my statement of support with this; I am greatly concerned about the spending proposals being presented by the President. Is it enough to keep me from voting for him? Probably not since the rate of spending can only be out done by any of the Democratic nominees.

But what about the Deficit?

N8 we actually have some common ground.

The United States have great resourses to spend in government and yet we (our elected leaders I suppose) usually spend more than they have.

The current administration was presented with a serious problems post 9/11. That problem required a unique solution or series of solutions to solve and I'm skeptical that we (our elected leaders I suppose) have presented solutions that reach to the core of the matter.

Problem one- When acedemia raised the question of why we were attacked they were shouted down as un-american. This is a valid question that conservatives and liberals both should be asking and investigating.

Problem two- How did our intelligence system fail?

Problem three- Why wasn't there a system in place to deal with a hijacked airliner heading towards NYC and DC?

How we reponded adressed none of these problems.

As some time has passed these conversations are taking place and I am honestly optimistic that some good policy can be created.

To bring this all back to the topic, if the money Bush was spending were gong to revamping our intelligence system instead of waging war on Iraq then perhaps people would be more willing to accept the deficit. Because when we are done spending 80-100 billion dollars on Iraq we will still have the core issues here at home to deal with.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by N8
The problem is that a Dem president would be spending at the same rate or greater while hamstringing the defense of the nation.

You liberal girlies are acting like Deficit Spending is a new phenomenon...

I don't understand this line of reasoning.

"Sure Bush is really really bad, but a Democrat would only be worse!"

Look up the last federal budget surplus, and tell me who the president was.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Silver
I don't understand this line of reasoning.

"Sure Bush is really really bad, but a Democrat would only be worse!"

Look up the last federal budget surplus, and tell me who the president was.

Sorry I take issue with Clinton and Surplus. So I guess this is off topic.

Did Clinton do anything but ride the coat tales of a tremendous emonomic boom and sit back and idle on the problems listed by Ummbikes above? He was able to cut spending on military in times where it wasn't needed.

Yes we had a "surplus" (I still question the real surplus we had) We also sat and didn't do much to help why 9/11 happened.

The econimic down turn was in effect before clinton left office. We had a horrific event with 9/11 that greatly redirected the countries attention. Given just these selective events...do you think Clinton would have faired better in office now?

Yes Clinton had a "surplus", but given the hand he was delt he was hard pressed not to. Do you honestly think CLinton would still have a surplus if her were in office?

Fantifull thinking at best.

(I guess I am a bitter Rhino)

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by Silver
I don't understand this line of reasoning.

"Sure Bush is really really bad, but a Democrat would only be worse!"

Look up the last federal budget surplus, and tell me who the president was.

Clinton simply was the benificary of Pres. Regan's economic policies and he didn't do anything to keep the economic boom from collapsing hince where we are today.


And it's a fact that a Democrate president IS worse for the country as a whole. I *SHUDDER* to think about Algore as president post 9/11....

 

[DHRacer]

Originally posted by N8
I am SO intimated...

is this a word you learned during your time in prison?




back to topic at hand... I voted for Bush. In this day and age, politicians are all the same. The tags Republican and Democrat don't mean dick anymore in the overall big picture. so basically it's a matter of voting for the lesser of the two evils.

what I feel is the biggest issue, is that politicians (of any party), don't care! why? because they don't live in the real world. they don't have worry about how much "they" are paying for things or how much "they" are paying for taxes, because they make a buttload of money or some of what we stress over is provided for them free of charge. plain and simple. IF, politicians were forced to live on normal incomes, we'd definitly see a dramatic change in many things in our nation.

maybe i have taken a defeatest approach on things, but until this aspect of the political forum changes... nothing will ever get better for the common man.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Bush Seeks Big Jump in Missile Defense Spending
By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration will ask Congress to boost spending on missile defense by $1.2 billion next year and nearly double funding to modernize the Army in the $401.7 billion U.S. military budget for 2005, according to Pentagon (news - web sites) documents released on Friday.

The defense plan is part of a proposed $2.3 trillion federal budget President Bush (news - web sites) will send to lawmakers on Monday. It includes a 7 percent increase in defense spending over the current level of $375 billion.

The Pentagon said the defense budget documents -- scheduled to be formally released on Monday with the president's overall budget -- were inadvertently posted on the Internet on Friday morning. They were later removed.

The administration seeks to boost funding for its controversial missile defense program by 13 percent to $10.2 billion next year from $9 billion requested for fiscal 2004.

The new figure includes spending by the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency of $9.1 billion in 2005, up from $7.6 billion, as well as the Army's Patriot missile program.

The Pentagon's plan to begin deploying the initial parts of a missile defense shield by September has drawn sharp criticism from some U.S. allies and Democrats who say it has not been adequately tested and could spark an arms race in space.


The budget also calls for $3.2 billion for the Army's "Future Combat System," a high-tech plan to make soldiers more mobile and lethal in the post-Cold War world. That is up from $1.7 billion in the current year.

The military plans to spend $74.9 billion to buy weapons and other equipment in the 2005 fiscal year, starting Oct. 1. For this year, the Pentagon asked Congress for $72.5 billion, but actual spending on weapons systems rose to $81.1 billion due to extra war-related spending approved by lawmakers.

The requested $74.9 billion is also expected to increase sharply under a supplemental spending request expected from the administration after the November presidential election.

The defense budget does not include up to $40 billion or more in supplemental spending for military operations in Iraq (news - web sites), which congressional sources and analysts say the White House could seek from Congress late this year or early next year.

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

The budget calls for almost $4.6 billion for Lockheed Martin Corp.'s Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, up from $4.25 billion requested in 2004. The program to develop a stealthy, long-range fighter includes more than a dozen foreign partners including Britain, the Netherlands and Australia.

The defense budget made waves on Wall Street, with analysts probing the documents for clues on the futures of key defense contractors like Lockheed, Boeing Co., Northrop Grumman Corp., Raytheon Co. and General Dynamics Corp. .

"Boeing appears well served by this budget proposal," Wachovia Securities analyst Robert Spingarn said in a research note. The Chicago-based company is the lead contractor for both the ground-based missile defense program and the Future Combat System.

The 2001 attacks on America sparked wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites) and increased spending on Special Operations forces in addition to the usual increases for high-tech weaponry.

The 2005 budget also asks Congress for almost $69 billion in weapons research and development, up from the $64.7 billion it sought last year.

The documents showed Bush will seek to buy 24 of Lockheed Martin Corp's F/A-22 Raptor fighter aircraft in fiscal 2005 for a total of $3.6 billion, up from the 22 jets the Pentagon requested a year ago.

The Air Force would get three V-22 "Osprey (news - web sites)" tilt-rotor aircraft in 2005 for a cost of $305.6 million, up from the two requested in the fiscal year at a cost of $213.7 million, according to the documents.

The Osprey, which suffered two high-profile crashes in 2000 killing 23 Marines, is being built by Boeing and Textron Inc.'s Bell Helicopter for the Marine Corps, the Air Force and Special Operations forces.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Sorry I take issue with Clinton and Surplus. So I guess this is off topic.

Did Clinton do anything but ride the coat tales of a tremendous emonomic boom and sit back and idle on the problems listed by Ummbikes above? He was able to cut spending on military in times where it wasn't needed.

Yes we had a "surplus" (I still question the real surplus we had) We also sat and didn't do much to help why 9/11 happened.

The econimic down turn was in effect before clinton left office. We had a horrific event with 9/11 that greatly redirected the countries attention. Given just these selective events...do you think Clinton would have faired better in office now?

Yes Clinton had a "surplus", but given the hand he was delt he was hard pressed not to. Do you honestly think CLinton would still have a surplus if her were in office?

Fantifull thinking at best.

(I guess I am a bitter Rhino)

Oh this is a crock on all fronts.

9-11 for starters. NO ONE truly could for see that something like this would happen. For every major terrorist attack during the Clinton Presidency, the perpetrators were identified and in many cases caught. So should he have seen the escalation coming. Well if the answer is yes, then Bush should have seen it as well with the bombing of the USS Cole. But neither of them did and they operated on the assumption that further attacks would be of the simliar vein.

As for the military cuts they were nothing more than a continuation of the plans put in place in 1990 by Bush Sr. and then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Actually the Clinton adminstration never went to the extents proposed by Cheney and Bush in 1990. And even Clinton's cuts were reversed towards the end of his presidency.

From an intelligence spending stand point, he was constantly fighting the battle that the intelligence community needed to be spending more money on human intelligence resources than sitting on their asses and expecting technical resources to be enough to get what they needed. A need that has been proven again with the supposed failures of the intelligence agencies in Iraq regarding WMD. John Kerry is being criticized for voting against spending bills prior to 9-11 because his belief was similar to Clinton's.

The BIGGEST problem that faced and still face our military and intelligence organizations is that they are enamored with technology and forget the human element.

I will not under any circumstances attack the Bush adminstrations for increased spending in the areas of defence and intelligence with the times we have found ourselves in (the exception being star wars) as those are funds that need to be spent. HOWEVER, that does not excuse the fiscal irresponsibility of the this spending with cuts in taxes. Especially when all the other spending plans are taken into consideration.

So would we have a surplus if Clinton was the President right now? Probably not but we also would not be looking at the biggest budget deficits in history either.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8
Clinton simply was the benificary of Pres. Regan's economic policies and he didn't do anything to keep the economic boom from collapsing hince where we are today.


And it's a fact that a Democrate president IS worse for the country as a whole. I *SHUDDER* to think about Algore as president post 9/11....

Funny that Bush Sr. couldn't ride those same coat tails.

 

[El Jefe]

Originally posted by N8
No sh!t!!! I paid over $10k in taxes already and it look like I still owe another $5-6k....

almost 25k was my contribution to state and federal taxes this year. That's a lot of bikes......