Bush's proposed budget plan for 2007
- Thread starter S O F I
- Start date
spending more on defense is always a good idea imo. but i dont completely agree with cutting education. but to be honest i havent read that much into his new budget other than what ive heard and read in the MSM(main stream media) so i cant make a good judgement based on what the MSM tells me. i plan to read more up on it from unbiased sources in the upcoming days.
Doesn't money going to defense also include money going into border security?
If you seen news reports about the border lately we need it. Mexican amry has been crossing over into our side armed with machine guns getting into shoot outs with our border patrol who don't have many resources.
I'm sorry but I if this budget cuts away from govt hand outs then its a good thing because hand outs don't help anyone specially the poor.
But like I said I still need to read the actual budget which is whay everyone should do as well instead of listing to biased rports that have been judging this budget plan before it was even made to the public.
If you seen news reports about the border lately we need it. Mexican amry has been crossing over into our side armed with machine guns getting into shoot outs with our border patrol who don't have many resources.
I'm sorry but I if this budget cuts away from govt hand outs then its a good thing because hand outs don't help anyone specially the poor.
But like I said I still need to read the actual budget which is whay everyone should do as well instead of listing to biased rports that have been judging this budget plan before it was even made to the public.
interesting article i found
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=020806F
The AP calls it "austere." Reuters says it "cuts domestic programs from community policing to Medicare." The Washington Post: "drains money from two-thirds of federal agencies, continues a large military buildup" CNN: "Teachers, doctors protest budget cuts." USA Today: "Bush's budget big on security, Medicare, domestic programs trimmed." Even Republicans are critics. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called the cuts in education and health "scandalous." Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, is "disappointed and even surprised."
All of which raises the question: Did anyone actually bother to read the budget? Apparently not. Because a casual look through the document finds that few of the claims holds water. As it turns out:
The Defense budget is going down, not up. Bush has set total Defense spending for 2007 at $504 billion, down from $512 billion in 2006. (Bush is increasing the "core" defense budget; the savings come from a proposed cutback in "emergency funding" for the Iraq War.) Bush wants to cut Defense spending still more in 2008, to $473 billion.
Ditto Homeland Security: Bush proposes spending $43.6 billion on Homeland Security, down from $43.8 billion in 2006. The figure keeps dropping each year for the next five.
Education spending is through the roof: Even if Bush does convince Congress to trim back on education spending in 2007, the Department of Education's budget will be 80% bigger than when Bush took office. In the eight years Bill Clinton was in the White House, education spending climbed just 17%.
Medicare "cuts" aren't cuts at all: The program will continue to grow at a healthy clip over the next five years, spending $100 billion more in 2011 than in 2007. All Bush is proposing is a modest adjustment in the rate of increase. Yes, the change adds up to $36 billion over five years, but that's a mere 1.6% of the $2.2 trillion in projected Medicare spending for those years.
Bush's 2007 budget is an extremely modest attempt to rein in what has been one of the most prolific spending sprees in modern American history. Under Bush, overall federal spending has climbed 20%. And that's after adjusting for inflation. (By comparison, spending climbed 12.7% in real terms during the Clinton years.)
Bush's 2007 is about $500 billion above where federal spending would be if he simply maintained the spending trend set by Bill Clinton. (Clinton years in Blue, Bush years in Red. Total spending in $Trillions).
It would be nice to blame the war on terror, or the growth in entitlement programs, for this climb. But spending on things other than Defense and Homeland Security, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and Medicare, actually rose at a faster rate -- 23%.
Here's another way to took at it. If Bush wanted to get spending back on the growth trajectory set by Clinton, he would need to cut more than $500 billion out of his budget this year alone. (See chart.) Even leaving out everything but non-Defense domestic discretionary spending, Bush's domestic discretionary spending for 2007 is above the Clinton trajectory by $78 billion dollars.
So, realistically, anything short of spending cuts of these magnitudes really doesn't count as a budget cut at all.
John Merline, former editorial writer for USA Today, is a writer living in Virginia
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=020806F
The AP calls it "austere." Reuters says it "cuts domestic programs from community policing to Medicare." The Washington Post: "drains money from two-thirds of federal agencies, continues a large military buildup" CNN: "Teachers, doctors protest budget cuts." USA Today: "Bush's budget big on security, Medicare, domestic programs trimmed." Even Republicans are critics. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called the cuts in education and health "scandalous." Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, is "disappointed and even surprised."
All of which raises the question: Did anyone actually bother to read the budget? Apparently not. Because a casual look through the document finds that few of the claims holds water. As it turns out:
The Defense budget is going down, not up. Bush has set total Defense spending for 2007 at $504 billion, down from $512 billion in 2006. (Bush is increasing the "core" defense budget; the savings come from a proposed cutback in "emergency funding" for the Iraq War.) Bush wants to cut Defense spending still more in 2008, to $473 billion.
Ditto Homeland Security: Bush proposes spending $43.6 billion on Homeland Security, down from $43.8 billion in 2006. The figure keeps dropping each year for the next five.
Education spending is through the roof: Even if Bush does convince Congress to trim back on education spending in 2007, the Department of Education's budget will be 80% bigger than when Bush took office. In the eight years Bill Clinton was in the White House, education spending climbed just 17%.
Medicare "cuts" aren't cuts at all: The program will continue to grow at a healthy clip over the next five years, spending $100 billion more in 2011 than in 2007. All Bush is proposing is a modest adjustment in the rate of increase. Yes, the change adds up to $36 billion over five years, but that's a mere 1.6% of the $2.2 trillion in projected Medicare spending for those years.
Bush's 2007 budget is an extremely modest attempt to rein in what has been one of the most prolific spending sprees in modern American history. Under Bush, overall federal spending has climbed 20%. And that's after adjusting for inflation. (By comparison, spending climbed 12.7% in real terms during the Clinton years.)
Bush's 2007 is about $500 billion above where federal spending would be if he simply maintained the spending trend set by Bill Clinton. (Clinton years in Blue, Bush years in Red. Total spending in $Trillions).
It would be nice to blame the war on terror, or the growth in entitlement programs, for this climb. But spending on things other than Defense and Homeland Security, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and Medicare, actually rose at a faster rate -- 23%.
Here's another way to took at it. If Bush wanted to get spending back on the growth trajectory set by Clinton, he would need to cut more than $500 billion out of his budget this year alone. (See chart.) Even leaving out everything but non-Defense domestic discretionary spending, Bush's domestic discretionary spending for 2007 is above the Clinton trajectory by $78 billion dollars.
So, realistically, anything short of spending cuts of these magnitudes really doesn't count as a budget cut at all.
John Merline, former editorial writer for USA Today, is a writer living in Virginia
The article that I read says otherwise. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1585233
For example, the part about education, what he wants to do is to train math and science teachers. HOWEVER, he wants to cut down money to support the arts, vocational education, parent resource centers, and drug-free schools.
For example, the part about education, what he wants to do is to train math and science teachers. HOWEVER, he wants to cut down money to support the arts, vocational education, parent resource centers, and drug-free schools.
just throwing a different opinion into the mix. but like i said the best thing for anyone to do is read the actual budget before making up their mind
i plan on reading it this weekend when i get some time off from school
you can download it here
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/
i plan on reading it this weekend when i get some time off from school
you can download it here
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/
Yes, as the current president of the mightiest democratic nation on earth, I would expect him to do more about equalities for everyone. I expect that from all democratic nations, not just the US. But they should make a start with "bringing peace and democracy" in the form of bread rather than M16's.
It's idealistic banter, I know. That's why I feel so strongly about it.
It's idealistic banter, I know. That's why I feel so strongly about it.
Definitely. 
And I also think that what Bush wants is impossible. In the 21th century, which I bet is going to be the age of communication and interaction on a global scale, you can't wall yourself off from men with stanley knives.
Of course there's more to that, i'm simplifying things, but the principle still applies.
If I can idealize a bit further, i would like to see a more or less unified Earth at the end of this century. So we as humans can advance our species as good as possible, instead of advancing only our own clique and working against others. We've been bickering for millenia now. The time is ripe for a big "Human Alliance", massive space exploration and fighting Klingons and slimy aliens in 2150.
And I also think that what Bush wants is impossible. In the 21th century, which I bet is going to be the age of communication and interaction on a global scale, you can't wall yourself off from men with stanley knives. Of course there's more to that, i'm simplifying things, but the principle still applies.
If I can idealize a bit further, i would like to see a more or less unified Earth at the end of this century. So we as humans can advance our species as good as possible, instead of advancing only our own clique and working against others. We've been bickering for millenia now. The time is ripe for a big "Human Alliance", massive space exploration and fighting Klingons and slimy aliens in 2150.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.