Skip to comments.
Bush sends Congress $2.57 trillion budget
AP ^
| 2/7/5
| MARTIN CRUTSINGER
Posted on 02/07/2005 7:56:15 AM PST by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-209 next last
1
posted on
02/07/2005 7:56:16 AM PST
by
SmithL
To: SmithL
I'll bet the phrases "2.57 trillion" and "austere" have never before appeared in the same story.
2
posted on
02/07/2005 7:57:51 AM PST
by
TheBigB
(Ask Fierce Allegiance about his suck emergencies!)
To: SmithL
>> and 5.6 percent at the Environmental Protection Agency.
I was so hoping to see that the EPA was scrapped. Shucks, maybe next time.
3
posted on
02/07/2005 7:59:46 AM PST
by
Brian328i
To: SmithL
Finally, some fiscal responsibility from our President. Reducing the size and scope of government is one of the major tenets of conservatism. Good move.
4
posted on
02/07/2005 8:00:51 AM PST
by
Reagan Man
("Don't let the bastards grind you down." General "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell)
To: SmithL
I can hear the liberals whine already. This has to be done as fast as possible.
5
posted on
02/07/2005 8:02:47 AM PST
by
grapeape
("If your attack is going too well, you're probably walking into an ambush.")
To: Reagan Man
Here we go. "Bush wants to kill old widows and black children. "
6
posted on
02/07/2005 8:02:49 AM PST
by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: Brian328i
EPA, D of Ed, Commerce, Civil rights, etc.. Get rid of those, and I'll be happy.
7
posted on
02/07/2005 8:06:06 AM PST
by
pissant
To: SmithL
I remember when the first $100 billion dollar budget was adopted under Eisenhower. Compare that to current proposal. Comparable dollars aside, it is a lot of walking around money for the politicians to play with.
8
posted on
02/07/2005 8:06:45 AM PST
by
cynicom
(<p)
To: TheBigB
If 'conservatism' is no longer about fiscal restraint, then what is left?
9
posted on
02/07/2005 8:06:57 AM PST
by
malakhi
To: AppyPappy
"Here we go. "Bush wants to kill old widows and black children. ""
Only in states where there is a RAT Senator up for reelection.
10
posted on
02/07/2005 8:07:05 AM PST
by
EQAndyBuzz
(60 votes and the world changes.)
To: Reagan Man
Finally, some fiscal responsibility from our President. Reducing the size and scope of government is one of the major tenets of conservatism. Good move. You're kidding, right?
11
posted on
02/07/2005 8:07:53 AM PST
by
malakhi
To: SmithL
NPR/PBS? Wanna bet they get funded?
12
posted on
02/07/2005 8:08:33 AM PST
by
Drango
(tag line under repair)
To: AppyPappy
2004
DIMs:"BUSH's budget is out of control!!!! He's spending like a drunken sailor"
2005
BUSH:"In order to sustain our economic expansion, we must continue pro-growth policies and enforce even greater spending restraint across the federal government."
2005
DIMs: "BUSH wants to starve the poor and cut every program to the bone. What we need is increases, not cuts in social programs"
13
posted on
02/07/2005 8:09:33 AM PST
by
frogjerk
To: grapeape
President Bush sent Congress a $2.57 trillion budget plan Monday that seeks deep spending cuts across a wide swath of government from reducing subsidies paid to the nation's farmers, cutting health care payments for poor people and veterans and trimming spending on the environment and education. First paragraph of the AP release, no less! Bush hates the poor and the veterans he sends off to die! Film at eleven!!
14
posted on
02/07/2005 8:13:14 AM PST
by
liberty_lvr
(Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.)
To: SmithL
The spending document projects that the deficit will hit a record $427 billion this year, the third straight year that the red ink in dollar terms has set a record. Bush projects that the deficit will fall to $390 billion in 2006 and gradually decline to $233 billion in 2009 and $207 billion in 2010. Those figures don't include the $80 billion Bush wants for Iraq, the cost of making the tax cuts permanent, or the cost of allowing for private accounts for Social Security. So I wonder what the defecits really will be? How how really meaningless these supposed cuts actually are.
To: malakhi
If 'conservatism' is no longer about fiscal restraint, then what is left? Getting the job done right?
16
posted on
02/07/2005 8:15:26 AM PST
by
coconutt2000
(NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
To: Drango
NPR/PBS and Amtrak- need to be defunded ASAP!
17
posted on
02/07/2005 8:15:26 AM PST
by
RushCrush
(If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement. - Reagan)
To: SmithL
Friends in DC refer to this bueget as the "Lobbiests' Protection Act of 2005."
18
posted on
02/07/2005 8:15:39 AM PST
by
MindBender26
(Having your own XM177 E2 means never having to say you are sorry......)
To: malakhi
A 10% cut across the board would have been more to my liking, but as I said,
"some" proposed cuts are better then NO proposed cuts.
Cynics and malcontents are never satisfied.
19
posted on
02/07/2005 8:18:01 AM PST
by
Reagan Man
("Don't let the bastards grind you down." General "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell)
To: Reagan Man
Cynics and malcontents are never satisfied. Isn't that the truth. Some people will gripe no matter what happens. Must just be their nature.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-209 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson