The Budget

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Bush's proposed budget is really chapping my ass. Not surprisingly, he's using the insane debt that he's amassed as an excuse to remove the safety net that we had established for poor people. But of course, poor people don't vote for his side, so who really gives a fuck?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1407400,00.html

 

And, he's "SUPPORTINGOURTROOPS2003!" by increasing their co-pay and coverage fees!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http...252|KH{c5vjevb-

 

So, in the immortal words of an old black guy in a Dave Chappelle standup routine, "if I see President Bush, I'll kick his muthafuckin' ass..."

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Don't care -- nothing will be cut, everything will be given more money, and we might hit the $3 trillion mark shortly...

[Guest SideFXs]

Oh, Congress will entertain cutting the defence budget. Why? Its the easy way to get re-elected. Maybe certain people should join the 18,000 who are moving to Canada, if they are so unhappy with our President.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

So, 49% of the United States should move out?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Actually, since about 60 percent of the U.S. voted, I'd say about 29 percent of the United States should move out. Works for me -- there'll be less traffic to worry about...

[MrRant 0]

Well... in CA and NY maybe.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Oh, Congress will entertain cutting the defence budget. Why? Its the easy way to get re-elected. Maybe certain people should join the 18,000 who are moving to Canada, if they are so unhappy with our President.

Again, SideFXs, I would invite you to become a comma super hero!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

More on the budget...

 

-Bush pledged to half the deficit by 2009--this, of course, doesn't include Iraq, Afghanistan, the cost of social security privatization, or making his tax cuts permanent.

 

 

-The cuts made to social programs account for 6% of the deficit. Bush's tax cuts account for 50%.

[SuperJerk 0]

Well... in CA and NY maybe.

Try the every major city.

 

You, the places where the actual traffic is.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Bush's proposed budget is really chapping my ass.  Not surprisingly, he's using the insane debt that he's amassed as an excuse

Balogna. Cutting taxes means cutting the budget.

 

This is actually MORE responsible than what he's been doing before.

[Jingus 0]

The problem with any budget cuts is that, for them to actually work, at least a few government programs have to be gutted or abolished. But, every government program tends to have some good points to it and does at least a little good work. So, budget cuts are gonna piss off a lot of people no matter how carefully they're applied.

 

I still think the tax cuts were a dumb idea tho.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't mind as long as the numbers balance out and the bills are being paid. But then, I'm moderate like that.

 

My complaint with this is it turns out that this doesn't include crapola about the Iraq war or Social Security, throwing the budget out of balance. Nice work as usual, guys.

[SuperJerk 0]

Bush: Huge highway bill will create jobs

Legislation loaded with money for special projects

 

MONTGOMERY, Illinois (AP) -- President Bush opened the gates Wednesday for spending a whopping $286.4 billion over six years on roads and bridges, rail and bus facilities, bike paths and recreational trails, saying the projects from coast to coast would spur the economy and save lives.

 

Critics said the 1,000-page transportation bill was weighed down with pet projects to benefit nearly every member of Congress. The bill's price tag was $30 billion more than Bush had recommended, but he said he was proud to sign it.

 

"Highways just don't happen," Bush said. "People have got to show up and do the work to refit a highway or build a bridge, and they need new equipment to do so. So the bill I'm signing is going to help give hundreds of thousands of Americans good-paying jobs."

 

To make his point, Bush signed the measure at a suburban Chicago Caterpillar Inc. plant in the home district of House Speaker Dennis Hastert. The Republican leader oversaw nearly two years of negotiations on Capitol Hill to get a slimmed-down version that Bush would accept.

 

Bush spoke to workers outside the plant, surrounded by sparkling construction machinery. Two cranes held a sign that said "Improving Highway Safety for America" over the portable stage set up with a wooden desk for the signing.

 

The bill signing was the second ceremony this week that has taken Bush from his Texas ranch, where he is spending about five weeks while Congress is on a summer break. On Monday, Bush went to New Mexico to put a new energy policy into law.

 

Two years in the making, the highway bill contains more than 6,371 special projects valued at more than $24 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

 

The distribution of the money for these projects "is based far more on political clout than on transportation need," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy for the group.

 

Alaska, the third-least populated state, for instance, got the fourth most money for special projects -- $941 million -- thanks largely to the work of its lone representative, House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young. That included $231 million for a bridge near Anchorage to be named "Don Young's Way" in honor of the Republican.

 

Coloradans argued over the need for $6.2 million for a bridge near Glenwood Springs. The city's mayor, Larry Emery, said the bridge is needed for safety. The state transportation director, Tom Norton, said other projects ahead on the list were pushed aside and the bridge project failed to make sense because of the lack of a connecting road.

 

In his speech, Bush mentioned a pet project in Hastert's district -- the $207 million Prairie Parkway connector to join two major highways in the growing region outside Chicago. Hastert has been pushing the project for years although state officials are not convinced it's the best way to ease traffic, and some critics say it will promote urban sprawl, hurt the environment and swallow up fertile farmland.

 

The home-state favors for lawmakers helped smooth over political differences between Bush and prominent Democrats who attended the ceremony, including Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, Democratic Sens. Richard J. Durbin and Barack Obama of Illinois, and several House members.

 

The president had threatened to veto the highway bill if it was too fat. White House spokesman Trent Duffy said some House members wanted to spend $400 billion, so Bush considered $286.4 billion a good compromise.

 

"It's not much more expensive than he had originally intended," he said. "This is a balanced transportation bill that funds our infrastructure needs while not breaking the bank."

 

Lawmakers backing the bill say projects were included on merit. They say money for infrastructure is well spent, especially considering that traffic congestion costs American drivers 3.6 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of wasted fuel every year.

 

Substandard road conditions and roadside hazards are a factor in nearly one-third of the 42,000 traffic fatalities a year, officials say.

 

"This bill upgrades our transportation infrastructure and it'll help save lives," Bush said.

 

The president touted a provision that gives states incentives to increase seat belt usage and create vehicle stability standards by 2009 to prevent rollovers. And he noted that with this bill, the federal government is not raising gas taxes to pay for road projects as some have advocated. Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook praised the bill's safety provisions, particularly the improved standards to protect vehicle occupants in rollovers and side-impact crashes.

 

"This legislation could produce the most significant safety enhancement since air bags were required in all vehicles in the 1991 highway legislation," she said.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/10/bus...l.ap/index.html

 

To quote Richard Nixon:

"We are all Keynsians now."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I like what Lewis Black says in one of his routines.

 

They should use federal funds and go out into some flat part of the country and build A Big Fucking Thing. And then advertise it for all it's worth on TV, and people will come from miles around to see the Big Fucking Thing, and people will soon set up a Big Fucking Thing hotel, and a Big Fucking Thing restaurant, and a Big Fucking Thing gift shop that sells Big Fucking Thing t-shirts.

 

That'll do something to boost the economy. The same principle applied (in part) with Hoover Dam.

[MrRant 0]

You forgot the part about it creating jobs.

 

I say start building more nuclear power plants. That would create jobs + lower electricity costs.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Don't care -- nothing will be cut, everything will be given more money, and we might hit the $3 trillion mark shortly...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

exactly.

this is not news.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

You guys think I hold out any hope for the longevity of the US economy?

 

I don't

[MrRant 0]

Do you think we care about your hopes?

 

 

I don't.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I care. I'm wrong for caring and feel so so dirty.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Well our finances would be better if we weren't shelling out tens of billions of dollars of pork in legislation for states that amounts to nothing more than political bribery to voters to get them elected. Also, since the government doesn't try to successfully audit programs such as Medicare that have MASSIVE fraud in them we experience more waste. Thus, the budget keeps getting bigger, deficits keeping growing larger, and the public TOTALLY misses the beat on how to fix the problem.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You forgot the part about it creating jobs.

 

I say start building more nuclear power plants.  That would create jobs + lower electricity costs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Despite what you may have heard from The Simpsons, nuclear power plants require the employment of smart people.

 

Are smart people having a problem getting employed? 90% of the time they're in high demand.

[MrRant 0]

Well, depends on the degree....

 

 

But, more nuclear plants = less electricity costs and that is what I'd like to see. Of course up here my power is primarily gained from hydroelectric power through the BPA but they are getting whacky with what they want to charge utilities for that said power.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Oh, Congress will entertain cutting the defence budget.  Why?  Its the easy way to get re-elected.  Maybe certain people should join the 18,000 who are moving to Canada, if they are so unhappy with our President.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Has this dude ever had a purpose? I mean, I haven't either, but it's like he just squats over his keyboard after a chili dinner and whatever keys get hit is what gets posted.

[SuperJerk 0]

You forgot the part about it creating jobs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Imagine how many jobs we could create if we decided to run up a $800 billion annual deficit. Is that what you want?

[MrRant 0]

There are probably plenty of private firms that would like to build more nuclear plants but we have to deal with NIMBY first.