Budget Fun

[Motorboat Cruiser]

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

From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 - President Bush's budget for 2006 cuts spending for a wide range of public health programs, including several to protect the nation against bioterrorist attacks and to respond to medical emergencies, budget documents show.

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.

BAGHDAD — A high-ranking Shiite cleric who helped a coalition of religious parties to apparent victory in Iraq's elections eight days ago said Sunday that the new constitution must embody Islamic law.

"We will accept no compromise," said a statement by Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad, one of the three top Shiite clerics who serve beneath the most senior religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Al-Fayad said separation of religion and state must be "completely rejected."

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.

[Scrooge McSam]

Freedom hater!

[SacTown Chronic]

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.

[scaeagles]

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).

[wendybeth]

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.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Are you seriously suggesting that if the people in Iraq vote for a theocracy, they will not get it?

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

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.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

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.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

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

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.