Bush Seeks to Soothe Republican Worries on Budget

Reuters ^ | Sat January 31, 2004 | Caren Bohan

[annyokie]

Let me make it simple for you:

You take out a second mortgage on your home to 1. consolidate your bills, 2. make improvements. Which is the more clever option?

Option 1 usually equals you running your credit cards back up to the hilt.

Option 2 equals an increase in your property values and a big ole capital gain for you when you sell.

[Kay Soze]

Why does he feel compelled to reassure members of his OWN party?

After all its just a few fringers that are "unappeased" right???


Thank God he is starting to get it.

If he fails to move back to the right he will lose in November.

[Torie]

I "knew" the prescription drug price tag was phony before the ink dried. Why? I have just been around the track too many times regarding these things. When it comes to medical subsidies the numbers are always way low. The only thing that surprises me is how quickly the emperor was exposed as having no clothes. Now the issue is why was there such a large error? Why was responsible? Who cooked the books? The period of time is too short to just blame it on the outcomes not matching the perdictions. Normally there are enough outcomes to provide cover for the perps to just say they are shocked and amazed. Not this time.

The WMD "scandal" doesn't interest me, although it certainly interests the media. This one does.

[Ol' Sparky]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004579

The much delayed omnibus appropriations bill for 2004, scheduled for a vote in the Senate this afternoon, looks set to cap the first term of the most profligate Administration since the 1960s.

The bottom line is truly shocking. Passage of the omnibus bill would raise total discretionary spending to more than $900 billion in 2004. By contrast, the eight Clinton-era budgets produced discretionary spending growth from $541 billion 1994 to $649 billion in 2001. Nor can recent increases be blamed on the war. At 18.6%, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending under the 107th Congress (2002-2003) is far and away the biggest in decades.

[Ol' Sparky]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004579

The much delayed omnibus appropriations bill for 2004, scheduled for a vote in the Senate this afternoon, looks set to cap the first term of the most profligate Administration since the 1960s.

The bottom line is truly shocking. Passage of the omnibus bill would raise total discretionary spending to more than $900 billion in 2004. By contrast, the eight Clinton-era budgets produced discretionary spending growth from $541 billion 1994 to $649 billion in 2001. Nor can recent increases be blamed on the war. At 18.6%, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending under the 107th Congress (2002-2003) is far and away the biggest in decades.

[Ol' Sparky]

Jonah Goldberg on Bush:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200401211053.asp

A few quick facts. George W. Bush has:

increased federal spending on education by 60.8 percent;

increased federal spending on labor by 56 percent;

increased federal spending on the interior by 23.4 percent;

increased federal spending on defense by 27.6 percent.

And of course he has:

created a massive department of homeland security;

signed a campaign-finance bill he pretty much said he thought was unconstitutional (thereby violating his oath to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution);

signed the farm bill, which was a non-kosher piñata filled with enough pork to bend space and time;

pushed through a Medicare plan which starts with a price tag of $400 billion but will — according to every expert who studies the issue — go up a gazillion-bajillion dollars over the next decade;

torched Republican — and American — credibility on trade, in both agriculture and steel;

got more people working for the federal government since the end of the Cold War;

not vetoed a single spending — or any other bill, and he has no intention of eliminating a single department;

sold out like a fire sale at Filene's on Title IX, a subject I know a little about because my wife is the foremost expert in the universe on it;

pushed to send more Americans to Mars while inviting a lot more illegal immigrants to hang out here in America.

[Krodg]

Does that mean that you will vote for Bush?

[annyokie]

Look, Sparky. Give me YOUR opinions not those you gather from your email.

Jonah has a job since his mommy is Lucianne, the erstwhile Trixie here on FR. Any guy who writes countless columns about his dog isn't worthy of consideration.

[Ol' Sparky]

Opinions mean nothing. The facts are Bush has increased non-defense discretionary spending at a greater rate than any President since the great socialist Lyndon B. Johnson.

[Orangedog]

What other President has had to refund National Defense and deal with Homeland Security?

Those two make up 40% of the spending increases. The other 60% is waste.

All the while, the stock market is charging and homestarts are at an all time high. Tech stocks rise form the dead, as well.

Yeah, all those tech stocks with a 100 P/E have a real bright future. [/sarcasm]

[annyokie]

It depends upon whose pontifications you are quoting. I did the math. Do yourself a favor and do the same.

[Ol' Sparky]

Okay. We can trust you do the math or Cato's fiscal analyst Veronique de Rugy. Who do you think has more crediblity? Some Bushbot or a fiscal analyst at the Cato Institute?

[annyokie]

Tech stocks are surging, contrary to all you doomsayers. Do you listen to anyone other than your barber? Tech is a bubble so I won't tell you what to buy so you can be like those of us who were lucky enough to buy Microsoft as an IPO.

[DManA]

No better time to put the fear of god into the bastards.

I propose we make even more of a racket.

[annyokie]

The Cato Institute is full of Chicken Littles.

[Orangedog]

Tech is a bubble so I won't tell you what to buy so you can be like those of us who were lucky enough to buy Microsoft as an IPO.

The MS IPO was 20 years ago. By your own admission that investment choice was luck. Care to "wow" me with any other tech investments from two decades ago and why that means anything in today's tech market?

[DManA]

There better not be any cute catches in this budget. Like eg. trying to slip in a $billion for some boondogle like Americorp as part of homeland defence. If he breaks this .5% growth promise, it will be his "Read My Lips" moment.

[annyokie]

Why bother? You obviously are not foresighted or I'd do my best to enlighten you.

[Orangedog]

As I understand it, the CBO or someone has actual numbers for 98 and 99 which showed surpluses. We had surpluses up until 01.

Even those "surpluses" were a mirage. If we had actually had surpluses, then the national debt would have gone down. It didn't.

[Orangedog]

Don't try to confuse her with facts.