1 posted on
02/07/2005 7:56:16 AM PST by
SmithL
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: SmithL
Many of the spending cuts in the budget are repeats of efforts the administration has proposed and Congress has rejected previously. Let's see if Congress can get their butts in gear.
21 posted on
02/07/2005 8:21:48 AM PST by
JohnnyZ
("Thought I was having trouble with my adding. It's all right now." - Clint Eastwood)
To: SmithL
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 educationI should hope so.
22 posted on
02/07/2005 8:22:17 AM PST by
RockinRight
(It's NOT too early to start talking about 2006...or 2008.)
To: SmithL
Are these actual cuts in spending, or cuts in the increases of spending??
23 posted on
02/07/2005 8:23:16 AM PST by
RockinRight
(It's NOT too early to start talking about 2006...or 2008.)
To: SmithL
But Democrats complained that Bush was resorting to draconian cuts that would hurt the needy in order to protect his first term tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy.What do you mean, "media bias"?
25 posted on
02/07/2005 8:26:15 AM PST by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: All
Spending, meanwhile, would grow by 3.5 percent to $2.57 trillion.Anyone know if that's in real dollars?
29 posted on
02/07/2005 8:28:14 AM PST by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: SmithL
C-span1 NOON (est)
News Conference Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Office of Management and Budget White House, Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Bolten, Joshua B., Director, Office of Management and Budget
Mr. Bolten will present the president's budget request for fiscal year 2006.
To: SmithL
Bush's 2006 spending plan, for the budget year that begins next Oct. 1, counts on a healthy economy to boost revenues by 6.1 percent to $2.18 trillion. Spending, meanwhile, would grow by 3.5 percent to $2.57 trillion.Something's not making sense here. If revenues are growing considerably faster than expenditures, that would cause the deficit to go down, would it not? So how is it that they're saying that this would be a "record" deficit?
33 posted on
02/07/2005 8:34:31 AM PST by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: SmithL
To: SmithL
Wow - this is the same budget my wife presented to me yesterday.
38 posted on
02/07/2005 8:41:41 AM PST by
Rutles4Ever
(This is my tagline.)
To: SmithL
cutting health care payments for poor people and veteransWhy the hell is he messing with veteran's benefits?
To: SmithL
I wish we could get rid of PBS. Does anyone watch PBS ?
47 posted on
02/07/2005 9:03:10 AM PST by
staytrue
To: SmithL
Eliminate the following:
The Department of Energy
The Department of Agriculture
The Department of Education
The EPA
The Department of Transportation
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Kill all boondoggle projects such as the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. All other departments to get increases only in line with inflation, with the exception of Defence.
Regards, Ivan
66 posted on
02/07/2005 10:57:52 AM PST by
MadIvan
(One blog to bring them all...and in the Darkness bind them: http://www.theringwraith.com/)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson