Got money for war, but fuck the poor
my2hands
Posts: 17,117
a few weeks old, but i think this helps illustrate the elites, and politicians, view of the world, as well as their view of me and you.
Bush Slashes Aid to Poor to Boost Iraq War Chest
By Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian UK
Tuesday 06 February 2007
President George Bush is proposing to slash medical care for the poor and elderly to meet the soaring cost of the Iraq war.
Mr Bush's $2.9 trillion (£1.5 trillion) budget, sent to Congress yesterday, includes $100bn extra for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for this year, on top of $70bn already allocated by Congress and $141.7bn next year. He is planning an 11.3% increase for the Pentagon. Spending on the Iraq war is destined to top the total cost of the 13-year war in Vietnam.
The huge rise in military spending is paid for by a squeeze on domestic programmes, including $66bn in cuts over five years to Medicare, the healthcare scheme for the elderly, and $12bn from the Medicaid healthcare scheme for the poor.
Mr Bush said: "Today we submit a budget to the United States Congress that shows we can balance the budget in five years without raising taxes ... Our priority is to protect the American people. And our priority is to make sure our troops have what it takes to do their jobs."
Although Democrats control Congress and have promised careful scrutiny of the budget over the next few months, Mr Bush has left in them in a bind, unwilling to withhold funds for US troops on the frontline. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said the days when Mr Bush could expect a blank cheque for the wars were over but she also insisted the Democrats would not deny troops the money they needed. Democrats could block Mr Bush's proposed cuts to 141 domestic programmes.
John Spratt, the Democratic chairman of the House budget committee, said: "I doubt that Democrats will support this budget and, frankly, I will be surprised if Republicans rally around it either."
Kent Conrad, the Democratic chairman of the Senate budget committee, said: "The president's budget is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality, and continues to move America in the wrong direction. This administration has the worst fiscal record in history and this budget does nothing to change that."
The Vietnam war cost about $614bn at today's prices. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Iraq war has so far cost $500bn. About 90% of the spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars goes to Iraq. In addition to the spending on Iraq and Afghanistan this year and next, Mr Bush is seeking $50bn for 2009.
Mr Bush said the fact there was no projected figure for 2010 did not mean he expected US troops to be out of Iraq by then. He said he did not want to set a timetable "because we don't want to send mixed signals to an enemy or to a struggling democracy or to our troops".
Included in the budget is $5.6bn for the extra 21,500 US troops that Mr Bush ordered to Iraq last month. Some Democrats have threatened to withhold this part of the budget but more than half of the troops are in place with the others on the way. A plan to build the Joint Strike Aircraft has been withheld. Its absence, at the request of the Pentagon, could have a knock-on effect for jobs in the UK.
In the run-up to the invasion in 2003, the Pentagon's projected estimate of the total cost of the war was $50bn. A White House economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, was fired by President Bush when he suggested that the total cost would be $200bn.
The New York Times noted that the cost of the war would have paid for universal healthcare in the US, nursery education for all three and four-year-olds in the country, immunisation for children round the world against a host of diseases, and still leave about half of the money left over.
The Pentagon has long complained that it is overstretched. Mr Bush wants to raise its budget from $600.3bn to $624.6bn for 2008 - about 20% of the total budget.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2006815,00.html
Bush Slashes Aid to Poor to Boost Iraq War Chest
By Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian UK
Tuesday 06 February 2007
President George Bush is proposing to slash medical care for the poor and elderly to meet the soaring cost of the Iraq war.
Mr Bush's $2.9 trillion (£1.5 trillion) budget, sent to Congress yesterday, includes $100bn extra for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for this year, on top of $70bn already allocated by Congress and $141.7bn next year. He is planning an 11.3% increase for the Pentagon. Spending on the Iraq war is destined to top the total cost of the 13-year war in Vietnam.
The huge rise in military spending is paid for by a squeeze on domestic programmes, including $66bn in cuts over five years to Medicare, the healthcare scheme for the elderly, and $12bn from the Medicaid healthcare scheme for the poor.
Mr Bush said: "Today we submit a budget to the United States Congress that shows we can balance the budget in five years without raising taxes ... Our priority is to protect the American people. And our priority is to make sure our troops have what it takes to do their jobs."
Although Democrats control Congress and have promised careful scrutiny of the budget over the next few months, Mr Bush has left in them in a bind, unwilling to withhold funds for US troops on the frontline. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said the days when Mr Bush could expect a blank cheque for the wars were over but she also insisted the Democrats would not deny troops the money they needed. Democrats could block Mr Bush's proposed cuts to 141 domestic programmes.
John Spratt, the Democratic chairman of the House budget committee, said: "I doubt that Democrats will support this budget and, frankly, I will be surprised if Republicans rally around it either."
Kent Conrad, the Democratic chairman of the Senate budget committee, said: "The president's budget is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality, and continues to move America in the wrong direction. This administration has the worst fiscal record in history and this budget does nothing to change that."
The Vietnam war cost about $614bn at today's prices. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Iraq war has so far cost $500bn. About 90% of the spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars goes to Iraq. In addition to the spending on Iraq and Afghanistan this year and next, Mr Bush is seeking $50bn for 2009.
Mr Bush said the fact there was no projected figure for 2010 did not mean he expected US troops to be out of Iraq by then. He said he did not want to set a timetable "because we don't want to send mixed signals to an enemy or to a struggling democracy or to our troops".
Included in the budget is $5.6bn for the extra 21,500 US troops that Mr Bush ordered to Iraq last month. Some Democrats have threatened to withhold this part of the budget but more than half of the troops are in place with the others on the way. A plan to build the Joint Strike Aircraft has been withheld. Its absence, at the request of the Pentagon, could have a knock-on effect for jobs in the UK.
In the run-up to the invasion in 2003, the Pentagon's projected estimate of the total cost of the war was $50bn. A White House economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, was fired by President Bush when he suggested that the total cost would be $200bn.
The New York Times noted that the cost of the war would have paid for universal healthcare in the US, nursery education for all three and four-year-olds in the country, immunisation for children round the world against a host of diseases, and still leave about half of the money left over.
The Pentagon has long complained that it is overstretched. Mr Bush wants to raise its budget from $600.3bn to $624.6bn for 2008 - about 20% of the total budget.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2006815,00.html
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
By Amelia Gruber
GovExec.com
Friday 09 February 2007
Education and health programs were top targets for termination or steep cuts in President Bush's fiscal 2008 budget, according to details unveiled this week.
Of 141 discretionary programs Bush recommended ending or scaling back significantly to save about $12 billion, 46 are run by the Education Department and 19 by the Health and Human Services Department. Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman spoke about the requests in broad terms earlier this week, explaining that programs that aren't a high priority or are ineffective would be subject to cuts.
According to a list later released by OMB, proposed cuts in Education initiatives would yield about $3.1 billion in savings over the spending levels Congress is set to approve for this fiscal year, which started Oct. 1, 2006. The bulk of that would result from ending programs, such as the Even Start family literacy program, completely.
The HHS cuts would free up about $2.3 billion, most of which would come from decreases in funding, rather than terminations, in areas such as social service block grants for states and rural health initiatives.
The Housing and Urban Development Department escaped with just three programs slated for termination and two for sharp cuts, but the dollar values involved were high. If enacted, the suggestions would yield $2 billion in savings. Programs targeted included Community Development Block Grants and the HOPE VI program for revitalizing public housing in severe need of repairs.
The Agriculture Department also figured prominently on the list, with 10 programs slashed completely for $573 million in savings and 12 recommended for substantial cut-backs, saving $358 million.
The OMB document did not say how many of the proposed cutbacks were linked to poor program performance. It noted that the administration has now evaluated 977, or 96 percent, of discretionary programs using its Program Assessment Rating Tool. Only 3 percent of those programs earned ratings of "ineffective," while 22 percent could not prove themselves one way or another and the remaining three-quarters were at least adequate.
Many of the programs on OMB's hit list for fiscal 2008 had been there previous years, but lawmakers spared them. In an introduction to the latest list of proposed cuts, OMB officials noted that Congress at least partly accepted 89 of 154 proposals for reductions in fiscal 2006, for savings of $6.5 billion.
Congress has yet to finish the catch-all spending bill that will fund agencies other than the Homeland Security and Defense departments through the end of this fiscal year. But in a policy statement on that measure, which passed the House late last month and is now before the Senate, administration officials expressed disappointment that lawmakers failed to follow suggestions for cuts.
Bush's fiscal 2007 budget also recommended ending or scaling back 141 programs, for a savings of $15 billion, the policy statement noted. "The House's approach ignores the savings from these proposals," officials wrote.
As an example, OMB noted that the spending resolution would continue to fund subsidies for oil and gas research and development the administration has opposed. Such research is again on the administration's list of cuts for fiscal 2008.
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=36105&dcn=todaysnews
That is interesting. But to me I think it shows taxes are too high right now. If taxes were so high that we can flip the bill for this war without a tax increase and by merely cutting spending, then taxes were way too high to begin with.
We are borrowing to pay for this war though.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html
Yes, it is shocking that the war upsets someone profoundly. I cannot believe he doesnt ignore it like most Americans. The nerve of him.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Paying on credit is the American way. Even if the Chinese hold our mortgage.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
As you should be, too.
But hey, as long as you're not out there getting shot at, getting blown up to bits and the war is far away from your very own front and back yard; why should you concern yourself, right. Go watch American Idol. yeah, that's the ticket.
wait wait wait, Is the war really worse than american idol?
Could be part of 1 thread though, no?
Ignorance like this is why the American people are going apeshit about the cost of this war. Tis administration was brilliant in lowering taxes and borrowing to pay for it. They will be long gone when our children and grandchildren pay for it.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
It was mostly a tongue and cheek answer since someone decided we needed a bunch of threads about the same thing...I was shifting topics so this one would be different.
Anyhow, I think my main point was having a governement that can do this and spend that much money shows me that the government is too big. It gives them the ability to do and spend whatever they want, whenever they want it.
bah, that only helps a minority of the population...halliburton could use it so much more wisely! :rolleyes:
it's sad how they cut so much from needed programs...headstart, the program to test school lunch meat for salmonella, student loan programs, medicare/aid...look at the health care politicians get on our dime, then compare to what yours most likely is...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
compassionate conservative
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Do you have a point?
don't mind me
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
whatever