Budget Fun
 

Ok, I'm trying to see the logic here, I really am.

From the NY Times:

We have no qualms about cutting funding for programs that might protect us...BUT... let's make sure that we spend a quarter billion dollars to promote marriage? We are cutting budgets for the Center for Disease Control, increasing copays for veterans meds, and cutting assistance to low income families to pay their heating bills...BUT...we are increasing funding by 50% for programs that promote sexual abstinance. Of course, the budget leaves out the 80 billion that Bush is expected to ask for in the next few weeks to help pay for this war, but that is ok because, hey, the wealthy got tax cuts.

We have just paid $300 billion dollars for a war where the likely outcome is that we just created another Iran.

We are pumping our tax dollars into a war that we started, even though there was no immediate threat, and are cutting funds that help our own people so that we can pay for it. Meanwhile, the president blames the deficit on congressional spending out of control.

I seriously cannot believe the poor leadership of this country. It boggles the mind.

Freedom hater!

No doubt, Scrooge.


Really, MBC, what's wrong with giving to the rich, taking from the poor, and increasing the funding to make war? Compassionate conservatism at it's best, baby.

I think the budget offered is politically brilliant. Of course I disagree with many of the items in the budget. Even with the cuts being made, 2.57 trillion is simply ridiculous and needs to be cut further. I doubt, however, that will happen.

The reason it is politically brilliant is because it offers republicans in the House and Senate an opportunity to look as if they are offering huge concessions to the dems because of how the budget is positioned. Should the dems not accept these concessions and demand more, they look petty and unwilling to compromise.

The final budget, after going through the House and Senate, will look much different. Bush and his team know this. So they are using the classic strategy of starting a negotiation far, far from what you are willing to accept so that they get perhaps more than they really want.

As far as Iraq becoming another Iran, I sincerely doubt it. Yes, the cleric said what he said, but if you are familiar with the situation in Iran, you know how incredible instable the government there is. One reason we may not have to take action in Iran is that it is looking like it will come from within. That being the case, I do not think that the citizenry of Iran wants this. In fact, polls of the Iraqis asking what type of government they would most prefer, an overwhelming majority chose that resembling the UAE, which is the most western style government in the region.

The cleric is a religious leader. Of course he will demand an islaminc government. I doubt the people of Iraq will go that route. Granted, I am not an expert on the Constitutional process going on there now (as far as how it will be written, ratified, etc).

Are you seriously suggesting that if the people in Iraq vote for a theocracy, they will not get it? Do you mean to say that we won't let them? Even if it is the 'will of the people'? The Iranian government may be unstable, but they are still very much in control of the country.

The budget is brilliantly laughable. More and more people, including the conservative pundits, are questioning aspects such as the decrease in funding for HS. Compassionate Conservatism, which has always been an oxymoron, is now a comic catchphrase. The Neocons are hanging themselves, and they are too arrogant to even realise it.

I think he's going to find as much resistance to this fantasy budget from Republicans as Deomcrats. Among other things, he's talking about huge gashes in farm subsidies, something that's going to affect Republican constituancies, and it's the congressmen that have to approve this and the congressmen who are up for reelection. Another example are the proposed cuts to HUD which Republican chair Christopher Bond said "make no sense."

It's unconsionable that he's once again trying to play fast and loose by conveniently ignoring the billions spent on the war. His 5 year plan also happens to ignore the effects of his proposed permanent tax cuts.

Not at all. I am saying they won't vote for it. Like I posted earlier, polls in Iraq have shown that the Iraqi people overwhelmingly favor a government like the UAE, which is the most "western" of any government in the region.

Actually, this is why I think it is brilliant. It gives the republicans who are up for reelection the opportunity to oppose such things. I am certain he will find resistance from the republicans. It makes the resistance of the dems less likely to gain political foothold in the off year elections by putting the house and senate members on the same ground - opposing major parts of the budget. The difference is that the republicans will position themselves as compromisers and the dems will continue to look like a party in opposition to everything. Even if certina things deserve opposition, it is how they will look, and I think that contributed largely to the reelection of Bush and increases in the house and senate.

Farm subsidies.....as I understand that aspect, it cuts subsidies to corporate farmers, not family farmers.

So, that would be why they appear to have elected the Shiite group with ties to Iran? Iraq Vote

You're right there. As we've seen, truth matters not. It's all about appearances.

Yes, they did receive the majority of the votes. Please note, however, that many Sunni areas boycotted the vote. Now, before shouting about how that shows the democracy will not work, I point out these two paragraphs from your link.

"In a bid to avoid marginalization, a group of Sunni Arab parties that refused to participate in the election said Saturday they want to take part in the drafting of a permanent constitution — a chief task of the new National Assembly.
The representatives of these political bodies that did not participate in the elections have decided in principle to take part in the writing of the permanent constitution in a suitable way," a statement from the group said. "

What this demonstrates is that the Sunnis realized that boycotting the election was about the WORST thing they could have done, and are now scrambling to become involved in the process of drafting the constitution. They know that being involved in the democracy is the best way to protect their interests.

So, while not a great prediction, prior to a Shiite majority proclaiming their version of Islamic law for Iraq in the constitution, there wold be a civil war. Neither of these will happen, however. These groups will have to learn to work together because of the ratification process.

These reports and predictions of doom are no different than the other predictions that said there was no way we'd meet any of the deadlines we had set for an interim government or an election.

For being less than 2 years after the initial invasion, I'd say things are going remarkably well. Violence still? Most certainly. There will continue to be so. This does nt mean that the process does not continue.

As it has been in politics and will continue to be so for all eternity. A sad reality, but one that I am willing to admit goes throughout the system and is not limited to one party.

And we've still failed to meet the primary goal of creating a stable military and police force.

Don't foget the veto power. Mainly intended to give the formerly independent Kurds a voice, any 3 provinces can group together and veto the constitution once drafted. One would hope that the threat of that happening will be a moderating force in the drafting process. However, one also fears that if it comes to a point where that power IS used, possibly by the Sunni, civil war won't be far behind.

What did I miss...have we found WMD?

I'm just enjoying the fact that Scaeagles admits we invaded another country....

I think we all have to admit that.

Who's willing to work to change it? I think that's the greater question.

That's a difficult question. I know I am frequently more in tune with how to play it to the advantage I desire, and that is most certainly a fault.

And I have ever denied this? Of course we invaded Iraq!

But, I thought we were just continuing a war from the prior decade....I can't believe the US would invade a sovereign nation! ;) Whatever will the world think of us? Isn't the party line that hostilities were merely on hold- that this is just a continuation of the Desert Storm action?

Ah, I wouldn't beat myself up too bad about it. I think there's a thread of that kind of thinking running through all of us. It does tend to lead to the kind of adversarial behavior we have running through our society these days and that's unfortunate.

Why play semantics, my dear Wendy? It is an invasion brought on by constant violations of the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War.

Why do you suppose that the Bush administration didn't choose to sell the war that way from the get go?

You see, I think he did. I think the media chose to ignore certain aspects. Yes, he claimed there were WMD. Why did he make such claims? Two reasons - our intelligence and the intelligence of our allies (and even some non-allies) said they did, and the aspects of the cease fire that would have allowed us the full and unfettered access to sites to confirm or debunk this were repeatedly violated.

In the pre invasion (or immediately post invasion) speech, he stressed this. He stressed the 17 or so UN resolutions. He did stress those aspects. The media, in their coverage, did not.

This IS how he justified the invasion.

Who you calling adversarial, you liberal jerkwad! :p ;)

I do remember him trying to use the non-compliance argument, but when the UN refused to go along with him, he began to rely more heavily on the WMD angle. Btw, Saddam was in default on the cease-fire terms, but that was up to the UN to take care of, not us. I was disgusted with their lack of enforcement, but it was not an excuse for our government to invade another country. Bush knew that the WMD argument was too weak- everyone could (and did) point out many other countries that met or exceeded the threat of Saddam Hussein.

No more appliances for you, if that's the way you are going to be.

Well, here's the thing. Violation of the cease fire was not reason enough for the invasion. The cease fire actually called for several other diplomatic strategies. Force was only as a last resort. So, to push things towards that last resort, Bush began to invent threats.

:cheers:

I always preferred mentally twisted. I was charter member of that club over on another site.

That's like saying it was the job of the UN to get Iraq out of Kuwait. The UN is an organization of lip service, pretty much impotent without the US to do the work. Even the EU didn't want to get their hands dirty in Bosnia, so it was up to the US to do it.

Matter of interpretation, I suppose. When does one act on a "last resort"? And Bush invented no threats - the intelligence was pretty much the same as when his predecessor was in office and Kerry and Gore and Albright and everyone and their mother was saying Saddam was a threat with WMD. No invention there.

I have no doubt that intelligenc did indicate that there were WMD. Hell, Rummy admits to giving Saddam some of them. Clinton managed to restrain himself from invading the country, but then again, it wasn't his daddy's war....Okay, now it's your turn to say that's why 9/11 happened.:rolleyes:

Wendy. Wendy, Wendy, Wendy.

Clinton did not invade Iraq. He preferred to do things like bomb aspirin factories in the Sudan and launch missiles to strike Saddam on the day Monica was testifying before the grand jury. OK - I only said such things because you are spouting the old line of "daddy's war". Clinton's lack of action on Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Would you like to say "war for oil" next? Or something like it was to "make his oil buddies richer"? You're better than that, Wendy.

Scaeagles, Scaeagles, etc....I only spoke of Clinton because you brought him up. And I'm surprised at you. What the hell kind of conservative are you that you don't blame Clinton for everything bad that has happened these past few decades? I'm sooo disappointed in you...;)

Bush was the only one dishonest enough to exaggerate the urgency of the threat. He played on the fear and paranoia of a post 9/11 America to forward an agenda that was in place before September 11, 2001.

Well, there is plenty of that we can do....but this isn't the place for it. ;)