Bush Budget

[Jim]

Another good laugh, if it weren't so sad. The military gets a 5% boost after huge increases the past few years, everything else gets the ax. The only bright light I see is that farm subsidies are getting hacked - but that is after the huge Bushy increases of two years ago.

 

Oh yea- the best is that the proposed permanant tax cut to the rich, the proposed Social Security change, and the ongoing costs of Afganistan and Iraq are - oops! Off-budget items? Talk about fuzzy math. Nothing like living in a military empire eh?

[specialed]

Ha Ha. The explanation was that it was impossible to determine how much they will need for defense spending, so therefore why even put it into the budget at all?

[Camilo]

Oh yea- the best is that the proposed permanant tax cut to the rich, the proposed Social Security change, and the ongoing costs of Afganistan and Iraq are - oops! Off-budget items? Talk about fuzzy math. Nothing like living in a military empire eh?

You jackass . . . that comes out of petty cash

[EWolfe]

Hey, if I had the treasury and a mandate from God I'd be printing money for my needs too!

[Mal_Con]

Hey, they have it on high authority that Armageddon will occur soon with the nuckular war between Israel and Iran any way so why bother with things like SS or conservation?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Oh yea- the best is that the proposed permanant tax cut to the rich,

 

I'm nowhere near the top 1%, and I benefit greatly from the tax cuts.

 

This year I look forward to taking that extra, new deduction for sales tax.

 

I can thank the Republican-controlled congress and our sitting president for all of the following (and more). Under the Socialists (aka Dems) I would have had none of these:

 

1) 1 % cut in marginal rate

2) $1000 per child tax credit (I have 3 kids, do the math)

3) sales tax deduction

 

And, in thinking of retirement benefits, I've seen maximum Roth IRA contributions go from $2000 per taxpayer per year to $3000, and soon to be $4000 and $5000. It's post-tax now, but tax free to withdraw on retirement.

 

So to all you demagogues harping on some "raw deal" on tax relief for the middle class - KMA!

[Stefan]

Not sure if what I heard was correct, but interest on the national debt is the third highest item on the budget proposal. Something almost like $400 billion. That's pretty close to the proposed budget of the military.

 

That's not a program folks. That's just interest.

[Squid]

That's awesome, KKK.

 

Now, just wait a few years til your kids go to college- I hope they won't need financial aid, cuz that just got axed.

 

But then again, they prolly won't have time to go to school- you'll have to start them working asap so they can start paying off the massive debt we're accumulating under the 'limited gov't & fiscally responsible Republicans.'

 

BTW- Don't forget to thank the Clinton administration for working to pass the Taxpayer Relief Act of '98- a fine example of bipartisan leadership (remember that quaint ideal?)

 

I need to up my medication.

Until then, up yours, KK.

[olyclimber]

WTF is an "Off budget item"? Is that Enron style accounting?

 

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."

[Mal_Con]

It is all clear when he explains it!

 

 

 

"Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."—Explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

[ScottP]

"Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."

 

If this were coming from someone talking to himself while walking down the sidewalk, people would cross to the other side of the street to avoid him.

[Alpinfox]

 

I feel so safe and cozy.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That's awesome, KKK.

 

Now, just wait a few years til your kids go to college- I hope they won't need financial aid, cuz that just got axed.

 

You can use your Roth contributions to pay for college. Responsible people start saving for this as soon as their children are born rather than rely on some nanny-state to pay for their kids' education.

 

I need to up my medication.

 

That explains a lot - your addled logic, and personal irresponsibility and need for someone (the state) to take care of you.

 

Until then, up yours, KK.

 

The feeling is mutual. Fuck off.

[olyclimber]

Compassion is over rated. Survival of the fittest!

[Jim]

Oh yea- the best is that the proposed permanant tax cut to the rich,

 

I'm nowhere near the top 1%, and I benefit greatly from the tax cuts.

 

1) 1 % cut in marginal rate

2) $1000 per child tax credit (I have 3 kids, do the math)

3) sales tax deduction

 

And, in thinking of retirement benefits, I've seen maximum Roth IRA contributions go from $2000 per taxpayer per year to $3000, and soon to be $4000 and $5000. It's post-tax now, but tax free to withdraw on retirement.

 

So to all you demagogues harping on some "raw deal" on tax relief for the middle class - KMA!

 

If you're not above $250k (married filing jointly) then you do not see the benefit of that 1% marginal cut dude. If you're more middle class say $100k joint - then you're benefit is more like $500.

 

The schedule for increasing the 401 limits was already in place, by Congress, before Bush was in office.

 

Using the Publication 600 Sales Tax table a couple earning $100k was able to deduct around $1,000. This may be a good thing as states with income tax do the same.

 

My main point is that the budget deficit continues to grow and all we have money to fund is military and homeland security. But we have good slogans like "No Child Left Behind".

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Compassion is over rated. Survival of the fittest!

 

Personal responsibility and self-sacrifice is underratted. The willingness to throw away other people's hard-earned money is too freely exercised. What ever happened to "ask not what your country can do for you?" If you are worried about underfunding of your favorite bureaucracy, take you tax cuts from the last 4 years and donate them to charities. Indeed, if you think your taxes are too low and the federal government is too small, nothing stops you from giving extra to Uncle Sam. Just cut a bigger check - no need to wait until April 15th either.

[Squid]

Responsible people start saving for this as soon as their children are born rather than rely on some nanny-state to pay for their kids' education.

..

That explains a lot - your addled logic, and personal irresponsibility and need for someone (the state) to take care of you.

 

Society as a whole benefits when we open doors of opportunity to everyone (even those with lousy parents)- some folks argue that much of post-WWII prosperity can be credited to the G.I. Bill and other government handouts.

 

Hell, I know I'm an undeserving piece of shit; I've sold most of my children for scrap and ate the rest. But if any of them do survive, should they pay for my irresponsibility? Should they pay for Bush's inability to balance a budget? I don't see how you can reconcile your values of personal responsibility with Bush's demonstrated and consistent policy of paying for programs with someone else's (your children's) money.

[olyclimber]

Compassion is over rated. Survival of the fittest!

 

Personal responsibility and self-sacrifice is underratted. The willingness to throw away other people's hard-earned money is too freely exercised. What ever happened to "ask not what your country can do for you?" If you are worried about underfunding of your favorite bureaucracy, take you tax cuts from the last 4 years and donate them to charities. Indeed, if you think your taxes are too low and the federal government is too small, nothing stops you from giving extra to Uncle Sam. Just cut a bigger check - no need to wait until April 15th either.

 

You mean give them more money for the war? Thats where it would go.

[Jim]

But if you're not a fan of big government why would you be supportive of the run-away spending Congress and Bush? Is it ok to borrow and spend for the military but if you spend on social programs using a balanced budget approach (remember that budget surplus?) it's not? The permanant tax cuts (which benefits the upper 1% primarily), the Medicade drug benefit (mainly to the drug companies), Iraq, and the proposed Social Security de-form (trillions over 30 years) are killing our ability to do anything proactive.

 

My perspective: Instead of being policeman of the world I'd take a look around and say, ya know, China and India are going to be the big economic players on the block in the next 50 years. What are we going to do to prepare for this? It seems like we should be investing in our kids future, not pushing the limit on their joint credit card. Invest in education, revitalize cities, promote high tech business, promote fuel conservation and alternative fuel research, save a few more great last open spaces, limit corporate welfare just as we have limited individual welfare. Just a few silly thoughts.

[Squid]

The willingness to throw away other people's hard-earned money is underated.

[Gary_Yngve]

1) 1 % cut in marginal rate

2) $1000 per child tax credit (I have 3 kids, do the math)

3) sales tax deduction

 

And, in thinking of retirement benefits, I've seen maximum Roth IRA contributions go from $2000 per taxpayer per year to $3000, and soon to be $4000 and $5000. It's post-tax now, but tax free to withdraw on retirement.

 

The standard deduction is far more than any itemized deductions I could make, so I couldn't give a damn about sales tax deductions.

 

Sweet, when Roth IRA contributions are $5000, I'll be able to put 50% of my post-tax post-rent earnings to my retirement.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Society as a whole benefits when we open doors of opportunity to everyone (even those with lousy parents)- some folks argue that much of post-WWII prosperity can be credited to the G.I. Bill and other government handouts.

 

Only people who earn it should be given this opportunity.

 

I knew plenty of people in college who got financial aid, and even "free rides" who neither needed nor deserved the money, and squandered their educational opportunities:

 

1) using financial aid money to buy stereo equipment, CDs, drugs, alcohol, and gifts for their girlfriends, rather than books, tuition, or paying their share of rent/phone/utility/food on time.

 

2) focusing more on the next kegger, smoking weed 5 times a day, hitting strip clubs, or worrying more about getting the next time to get their dick wet than studying, learning, and getting ROI on their education in general.

 

3) Maintaining mediocre GPAs in "easy" majors (read: with little prospect of job opportunities), rather than working towards a real degree that will offer jobs after graduation (i.e. engineering, pre-med, life sciences, etc rather than communications, sociology, etc).

 

When you pay for something yourself, and make sacrifices for it, you are generally more responsible.

 

Hell, I know I'm an undeserving piece of shit; I've sold most of my children for scrap and ate the rest. But if any of them do survive, should they pay for my irresponsibility? Should they pay for Bush's inability to balance a budget? I don't see how you can reconcile your values of personal responsibility with Bush's demonstrated and consistent policy of paying for programs with someone else's (your children's) money.

 

Because this budget is a move in the right direction. Bush has overseen exorbitant spending increases. It's high time to tighten our belts. I'd like to see the cuts continue, and for the programs we have to become more efficient. Transfer payments and the social safety net needs to be given to only those who truly need it, not those who just want to suck on the teat of the nanny state. I could even support such a safety net at the federal level, but the problem is that it is extremely difficult to objectively determine "need" through a large, federal bureaucracies (which are in no way "compassionate", BTW - it's a myth to think that they are). It is better for this to be done at the state and local level, and even better through private charities. The overhead of these bureacracies is ridiculous, on top of the fact that there is little oversight w/r/t who is actually helped by them. Moreover, they benefit by keeping people ON the programs - if they don't, they've worked themselves out of a job. At least with a charity, they have to keep their books in order, and if you lose faith with one because of a scandal (i.e. American Red Cross and the 9/11 fund), you can cut off donations and go elsewhere.

[olyclimber]

Shhh....we're going to scare the last conservative off the board dammit. Then we'll be stuck arguing about windshirts all day instead of politics.

[EWolfe]

But shouldn't windbags wear windshirts?

 

This from someone who has NEVER taken a NOLS course.

[Jim]

Because this budget is a move in the right direction. Bush has overseen exorbitant spending increases. It's high time to tighten our belts. I'd like to see the cuts continue, and for the programs we have to become more efficient.

 

But that's the point!!! The budget is not getting smaller - it's getting larger. And rather than tax according to what you're spending he's borrowing huge amounts. WTF - you just wave your hands and make believe that the proposed tax cuts, Social Security de-form, and the war in Iraq and Afganistan will cost nothing so you can ignore the costs?? The Bush budget is a proposed 8% INCREASE over last year - without considering the above big ticket items. I call it irresponsible to be spending and borrowing so much. Even Reagan, the rights shining example of deficit spending, got some common sense advice from his budget director Stockman and raised taxes in his second term to cover some of his earlier wild spending and borrowing. No such inspiration seems to be forthcoming here.