posted on September 2, 2004 08:27:49 PM new
I have to ask what you thought of some of the new projects that Bush mentioned tonight. Overall I have to say I think he did much better than I thought he would but when he was talking about many of his new propasals I have to admit that I was thinking "Linda just threw something at her TV over that one."
How's your screen doing?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on September 2, 2004 09:15:17 PM new
LOL - Good one. A few scratches on my TV screen [my monitor] won't hurt a thing....really. Kind of like scratched glasses.
As he kept going on...all I heard was "cha-ching, cha-ching,"...money going OUT of my cash register, rather than in it.
But my ears did perk up when I heard 'working for welfare'. lol
I sure like to see, asap, that 50 page booklet that the commentators said describes each of his new programs.
But hey, fenix, he also mentioned kerry's programs...and if I heard right he said $2 trillion....that's with a "T" dollars for what he's promising.
So...either way we're going to get it...looks like. But I'm still staying with the lesser of the two 'spenders'.
posted on September 2, 2004 09:39:46 PM new
Just got to thinking....he didn't mention anything about funding a space program, did he? I'm hoping I hadn't 'blanked' out by the time he was finished with his list.
posted on September 2, 2004 11:10:33 PM new
I didn't see the whole speech, having gone out for the evening, so I'll have to read the transcript tomorrow. However, the news just ran a small portion of it--and once again I see Bush is insisting that Hussein had something to do with 9-11, which is an outright lie. Can't wait to read the rest of the speech.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
Judy Woodruff noted the $450-billion deficit, and then asked, "Where's that money going to come from?"
From about three months ago...
On May 19, the White House issued a memo preliminarily outlining widespread domestic-funding cuts to be included in the 2006 budget. The memo, sent out to government agencies, said that spending levels for 2006 must not exceed the levels specified in a database included with the 2005 budget. According to that database, overall domestic spending will drop by $2.3 billion in 2006, not including inflation. The budget for the EPA will be cut by $161 million. The Department of the Interior will lose $200 million. A nutrition program for women, infants, and children will be cut by $122 million; Head Start, the early-childhood-education program, will be cut by $177 million. Other programs due for cuts include the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, the Transportation Department, and the Social Security Administration. The Defense Department, though, will receive a 5.2 percent budget increase, to $422.7 billion, and the Justice Department will receive a 4.3 percent increase, to $19.5 billion.
The Bush administration has publicized its plans to increase spending in many areas in 2005, without mentioning that funding would be reversed a year later. The 2005 budget gives the Education Department a $1.7 billion increase; the 2006 budget memo reduces that by $1.5 billion. The Veterans Affairs budget will get a $519 million increase in 2005, and then, according to the memo, a $910 million cut in 2006. A homeownership program will be increased by $78 million in 2005, as President Bush has repeatedly noted; it stands to be cut by $53 million in 2006. The National Institutes of Health would lose $600 million in 2006 after gaining $764 million in 2005. And homeland-security spending, described by the Washington Post as "a centerpiece of the Bush reelection campaign," would be reduced by $1 billion.
(Sources: "White House Budget Memo Riles Democrats," CNN.com, May 28, 2004. See article at: cnn.com. "Bush Plan Eyes Cuts for Schools, Veterans," The Associated Press, May 27, 2004. See article at: usatoday.com. Jonathan Weisman, "2006 Cuts in Domestic Spending on Table," Washington Post, May 27, 2004. See article at: washingtonpost.com.)
posted on September 3, 2004 07:44:46 AM new
So helen - when do you think kerry's going to explain how he's going to pay for $2 trillion dollars worth of promised spending?
So far, he's said he'll tell us AFTER he's elected. That's good to hear....must mean he doesn't really want to waste the time crunching the numbers just in case he doesn't get elected.
posted on September 3, 2004 08:00:41 AM new
I didn't expect you to have an answer, lindak -- to Bush's pie in the sky spending plan. At least, Kerry's plan involves increased taxes to the wealthy ....those making over 200,000 a year and a cut to corporate welfare. But Bush continues to promise what he can't deliver as this article indicates. He did it in 2000 and now he's trying to fool us again?
We will shortly hear from the president himself, but the outlines of his domestic program for a second term are already all too clear. Take five key areas of economic policy -- health, Social Security, energy, taxes, and the deficit.
All five have this in common: In each case the administration program doesn't really address the underlying problem. Rather, the purpose is either to help an industry ally, stir up the party base, or advance an ideological goal (or all three).
Health Coverage. Health insurance premiums have risen by more than one-third since Bush took office, leaving more and more people uninsured or underinsured. Families USA calculates from Census Bureau data that one nonelderly American in three was without health insurance at some point from 2002 to 2003. Meanwhile, employers and insurers are moderating their own costs by increasing copays and deductibles paid by consumers.
The president's proposed health program, a massive expansion of so-called health savings accounts, doesn't address the twin problem of dwindling coverage and rising costs. It simply accelerates the shift of those costs onto consumers and gives affluent people one more tax break. Health savings accounts are useful mainly for the healthy and the wealthy because they don't buy coverage that is both comprehensive and affordable.
Social Security. The Bush plan to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part, is back. But there is no way that privatizing the system will shore up its finances. Rather, it will do just the opposite by diverting payroll tax revenue needed for Social Security payouts into new private accounts. To keep the promise of Social Security intact, Bush would need either massive new borrowing or massive tax hikes. But the more likely result is reductions in benefits. Of course, these cuts, like the damage from his deficits, would hit long after Bush left office.
[b]Energy.[/b[ There's a growing consensus among experts that the most recent wave of oil price hikes is not mainly the result of market manipulation, refining bottlenecks, or the Iraq occupation but the harbinger of the long-predicted depletion of the world's extractable oil reserves. With the huge populations of China, India, and other emergent economies joining the global consumer society, demand is simply outstripping supply.
Bush's program is essentially deeper and wider drilling, lubricated by friendly tax and environmental policies. His support for conservation or alternative energy sources is token at best. Last week three Bush Cabinet secretaries, just in time for the Republican National Convention, belatedly conceded that science has proven the reality of global climate change caused by carbon emissions. Bush said he was unaware of the report.
Taxes. The tax program for a second Bush term will be more of the same. One goal will be to make the tax cuts of 2001 to 2004 permanent. A new twist will be a shift to consumption taxes -- either a value-added tax, a national sales tax, or new tax breaks for money saved rather than spent. The result will be an overall reduction of taxes paid by those wealthy enough to save substantially and a shift onto workaday voters who spend most of what they earn. This will be advertised as a program to create jobs and reward entrepreneurship, but it sure didn't work in Bush's first term -- the only presidency since Hoover with fewer payroll jobs at the end than the beginning.
The deficit. Hardly anyone, Republican or Democrat, truly believes that the Bush tax-and-spending program will do anything other than make the deficit problem worse. The Congressional Budget Office, whose director is appointed by congressional Republicans, projects endless deficits in excess of $400 billion a year. If Bush succeeds in making recent tax cuts permanent and adding new ones, the deficits will be even more serious. With military outlay rising, the administration's only game plan is to backload the effect of tax cuts until after this president leaves office and cut domestic spending even further.
As the latest Census report makes clear, the typical American is economically worse off than in 2001. The GOP game plan is to keep voters' attention riveted on the memory of 9/11 and the threat of terrorism. Otherwise John Kerry will eat Bush's lunch on the pocketbook issues.
It's a remarkable commentary on the ability of the administration to wave the flag and change the subject that Bush isn't held more accountable for the huge gap between his policies and their results. As the president himself so memorably attempted to say, "Fool me once, shame on you . . ."
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of the American Prospect. This column originally appeared in the Boston Globe.
posted on September 3, 2004 08:12:40 AM new
LOL helen - How could I possibly explain when he only mentioned these items last night and no one seems to have any information on it.
But..I was just thinking since your Judy Woodruff
was so very quick to ask just how Bush was going to pay for these, maybe, just maybe she ALSO knows, or might be questioning the same thing about kerry's promises and just how he's plans to pay for them.
Seems so very odd that she'd be asking that question after just one night....when kerry's been promising FOR MONTHS and months to explain how he intends to pay for them.
And on the kerry tax increase....it won't even pay for his promised health care program for only 1/2 of those currently without insurance. Again $2 trillion dollars is a tremendous increase in either our taxes [here comes the 70% tax rate again] or additional deficit. No two ways around that fact.
THAT'S why kerry won't talk about his plans to pay for it. He knows he has no way to pay for it all. And MOST people aren't looking forward to a doubling of their income taxes.
To think it's only going to be the 'rich' is ignorance....pure and simple.
Bush took a 236 billion dollar surplus and turned it into a record deficit of almost 500 billion. In order to handle that climbing debt, Kerry has revised the plans that you are using to total trillions.
One more question to consider that Bush failed to answer....
What has gone wrong with the economy to leave us with an employment level 1.7 million below what you projected last February that it would be by now?
posted on September 3, 2004 09:08:07 AM new
helen - Bye??? Is this one of those times you're always referring to how you always win the discussion? I've notice that's always when you have to leave.
--------------
On the job issue...I think most are aware that 1 million jobs were lost immediately following 9-11...and blame the terrorists for destroying that part of our economy...not President Bush. But hey...I understand everything in the world that goes wrong is Bush's fault...according to you.
Never blame the terrorists for anything...matter of fact...tell us how horribly we treat THEM all the time.
------------------
Doing a google search on 'kerry's numbers don't add up'....I have yet to find one that backs up your contention that raising taxes on the 'rich' will pay for even one of his larger promises alone.
But maybe you have proof to discredit the fact that kerry has stated at one time [but we know how that goes - he's probably changed his mind again] that he will CUT programs too. Especially since you're so concern Bush might be doing so.
-------
Kerry just can't pay for all of his proposals
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
John Kerry's numbers don't add up. And they're not even close.
In his speech accepting the Democratic nomination, Massachusetts' junior senator promised all sorts of expensive initiatives.
He promised to add 40,000 active-duty troops.
Double our special forces.
Provide troops with high-tech weaponry.
Inspect all container ships entering our ports.
Provide greater protection for nuclear and chemical plants.
For seniors, he said he would provide prescription drug coverage even more generous than the expensive plan President George W. Bush *pushed through Congress over Sen. Kerry's opposition*.
He said he would maintain all Social Security benefits.
And for veterans, better health care.
New incentives for manufacturing.
Investments in technology, alternative fuels, and cars.
Middle-class tax cuts.
Tax cuts for small businesses.
Standards and accountability in education, along with smaller class sizes.
Tax credits for "each and every year of college."
Universal health care.
Sounds good. But how would he pay for it?
Two ways, said the candidate. "Pay as you go," for one. In other words, if the income isn't there, he would delay the spending. What that really means is that his promises will remain mere promises.
The other source for all the new spending is the elimination of the recent tax cuts for individuals who earn more than $200,000 annually. On that front, let's quote ABC's Diane Sawyer, questioning Sen. Kerry last September: "I'm sorry. But if you only repeal those above $200,000, we calculate that it comes to some $40 billion against a potential of $470 billion deficit. What does it gain?"
If anything, Ms. Sawyer overestimated the windfall from hiking taxes on the wealthy.
Using the same kind of bipartisan economic model Congress utilizes, the Heritage Foundation will soon estimate the gain to the treasury from the proposed Kerry tax hike not at $40 billion per year, but at just $230 billion over a 10-year period. And once Heritage factors in all the various tax incentives offered by Mr. Kerry, it finds a net loss over the next decade of $630 billion.
Meanwhile, an analysis accepted as authoritative by the Kerry campaign put the price tag for the Kerry health-care plan at $653 billion during the next 10 years.
And that's before even considering all the other Kerry promises.
Granted, the Kerry campaign Web site is more specific. [It's more specific alright...the list goes on and on ]
It promises to restore discretionary spending caps on domestic spending, and to freeze or cut "non-priority programs." Sounds fine, until you consider that those same caps would apply to all the new programs (except the military) that he proposes. In short, he'll spend more for the programs, except when his own caps won't allow him to.
Hocus pocus: Now you see the promises, now you don't. But that's not magic--it's just a con game.
That's good to hear....must mean he doesn't really want to waste the time crunching the numbers just in case he doesn't get elected.
