Bush's agenda could top $3 trillion

Washington Post ^ | 14-Sep-2004 | Mike Allen

[HawaiianGecko]

The expansive agenda President Bush laid out at the Republican National Convention was missing a price tag, but administration figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade. A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan. Bush's pledge to make permanent his tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010 or before, would reduce government revenue by about $1 trillion over 10 years, according to administration estimates. His proposed changes in Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2 trillion over the coming decade, according to the calculations of independent domestic policy experts.

[HawaiianGecko]

I swear there is no place like Washington DC, where a $1 trillion dollar tax cut is called a 'cost', and where a $2 trillion dollar shift of your social security from one pocket to the other (neither of them yours by the way) is called an expense. People reading this article will think that they are going to pay $3 trillion more under Bush and only $2 trillion more under Kerry when the reality is that Bush is giving them BACK $1 trillion and Kerry is going to take $2 trillion more for a difference of $3 trillion more taxing from Kerry!!!!

[FesterUSMC]

Its called democratic lies spread by the MSM

[fritzz]

figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade

So What. That's 10 years. It wasn't long ago our debt payment was about 30% of our budget. We have about the same debt but it down around the single digits of our budget. Same debt, just doesn't mean as much. A few years ago we had a projected surplus for the next decade. None of those wonderful projections meant nor will mean anything. There are no constants.

[rudypoot]

Bush's pledge to make permanent his tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010 or before, would reduce government revenue by about $1 trillion over 10 years, according to administration estimates. His proposed changes in Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2 trillion over the coming decade...

Letting people spend their own money is a cost to the government. Paging Mr. Humpty Dumpty.

[Bigh4u2]

Here's the thing.

These demo pundits are upset that Bush is taking money from the GOVERNMENT and giving it to the PEOPLE who should be in control of it anyway.

No more free handouts and social programs financed by the people who don't want them to begin with.

Nice of them to think the Government knows how to handle you money better than you do.

[HawaiianGecko]

Your point is right on target

[Bigh4u2]

Another thing Allen isn't telling you is that Bush wants to give money back to the people.

Kerry want's to take it away.

But that's just splitting hairs. Right? (sarcasm)

[Bigh4u2]

It just drives the socialists nuts when you control you own money and destiny.

After all. They think that is THEIR job.

[misterrob]

This guy is an ass. The basic assumption here is that government is being denied revenue when in reality the money is being diverted back to it's rightful owners:

THE PEOPLE WHO WORK AND PAY TAXES!!!!!

[LS]

Look, we all know Bush has grown government even sans the War on Terror. Most of us do NOT agree with that. But that's not the main issue in front of us. The WP, however, wants desperately to depress the conservative vote, so now it is trying this tactic. Shameless.

[GailA]

hanoi john flip flop kerry's purposed NEW spending is $3.5 TRILLION and climbing.