Posted on 12/20/2004 10:35:05 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
President Bush says he will submit a budget that cuts the deficit in half and mantains strict spending discipline.
"We will provide every tool and resource for our military, we will protect the homeland," Bush said. He said he would "maintain strict discipline in spending tax dollars."
In the 17th news conference of his presidency, Bush was pushing his second-term agenda.
As for Iraq, Bush accused insurgents there of trying to "disrupt the democratic process" but he cautioned that next month's elections were just the first step of a long process in creating a stable, democratic country.
"The elections in January are the beginning of a process, and it is important for the American people to understand that," he said.
Bush defended his close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he has had disagreements over the war on terror and, more recently, over the disputed elections in Ukraine.
"The relationship's an important relationship, and I would call the relationship a good relationship," Bush said, adding that he had talked with Putin about getting Russia admitted to the World Trade Organization.
Bush said he work toward giving Russia and the United States equal access to nuclear storage sites.
Over the years, Bush has toned down criticism of Russia's campaign against separatist rebels in Chechnya, and Putin has acquiesced to U.S. troops being stationed in Central Asia, close to Moscow.
But earlier this month, Putin said he could not imagine how Iraqi elections that the Bush administration scheduled for Jan. 30 could be held under "conditions of occupation by foreign forces," a reference to the United States.
And don't forget that we're also talking an additonal $100 billion to $200 billion in borrowing to allow for privatizing part of Social Security. Those figures aren't included here.
Where did that sentence come from? Gov. Sanford is certainly not pro choice. Take a look at this:
http://www.sanfordforgovernor.com/news.asp?action=detail&id=1935&name=In%20the%20News
COLUMBIA - The Bethany Christian Services banquet crowd cheered as some of the Republican candidates for South Carolina governor stood up and declared abortion the "defining issue facing Americans." They promised to work with the faith community to outlaw abortions, and the audience applauded. But when Mark Sanford offered his version of a political reality check, the response was more tepid.
"When people ask us (about abortion)," Sanford began, "what they are really asking is where your heart is."
Sanford pointed out to the private social services organization that state governors really have no influence over federal abortion law, and - after assuring the crowd that he was with them, that he personally favored outlawing abortion - outlined what he could feasibly do to limit the availability of the procedure throughout the state. It was not exactly the fiery rhetoric the crowd wanted to hear, but it was typical Sanford: just the facts, not gussied up to win votes.
Also: http://www.sanfordforgovernor.com/issues.asp
What is your position on abortion? Are you pro-choice or pro-life?
I am pro-life, and as governor I would do everything in my power to discourage abortion in South Carolina. Science cannot tell us the moment a soul enters the human form, and I therefore believe that it is incumbent on us to err on the side of life in all matters relating to the unborn. My thinking on this has been strongly impacted not only by my personal faith, but also as the father of four young boys. God has shown himself in each of their lives from day one.
As a U.S. Representative, I consistently supported the unborn by opposing federal funding of abortion, supporting a ban on partial birth abortion and stem cell research, opposed every attempt to approve RU-486, and using taxpayer dollars for abortions overseas. My voting record during my three terms in Congress is proof of my position on this critical issue.
Ahh. That's where the difference was: you are only eliminating "discretionary" spending. That will not eliminate the departments in question (not even Education), and your original premise was "We could completely end all funding for the Departments....".
If we actually end all funding (i.e., we zero-budget them), the departments no longer exist, including their non-discretionary spending.
That's what I have been advocating, actually removing the Department of Education lock, stock, and barrel. No salaries, no employees, no more Department of Education. Not just eliminating the discretionary spending on their part -- although in their case, I don't believe that they would have a lot of work to do if they weren't out distributing their largesse.
Concretely, eliminating the Department of Education in the manner I suggest takes $65 billion of total money laid out off the books. What you suggest is removing the $57.3 billion of discretionary budget they get to blow each year, but keeping all of the "non-discretionary" bits like employees' salaries.
However, I don't spend a lot of time reading our federal budget, and I could just be plain wrong. I haven't gone and made the breakdown of the $65 billion laid out for Education.
I suspect that the likelihood of cutting the deficit in half is about as great as the likelihood that Bush will come to his senses and deport all the illegal aliens.
I agree Bush is a great president with a few radically socialist idea
s thrown in.
Depressing doesn't begin to describe it.
If we are buying assets (particularly appreciating ones) with the borrowed money, then I don't have any trouble counting that as a wash.
I don't think that the federal government should be in the Social Security business to begin with, and to the extent that this is actually taking the government out, I find it laudable on the philosophical side also.
You wrote:
Net Worth of U.S. Government (From Treasury’s 2003 Financial Report):
2003 = $-7,105,000,000,000
2003 Plus 75-Year Social Security and Medicare Liabilities = $-34,825,000,000,000
You really are trying to scare us aren't you... $35 Trillion debt.
Now add the rest of the story:
If the US economy experiences REAL growth of 3% per year from the present $11.5 Trillion/year, during the next 75years a total economic output of more than $3000 Trillion will be generated. Your scary $35T is about 1.2% of that - Hardly a big deal. Even at only 2% real growth, our economy will generate over $2000 Trillion bucks.
I'm as interested in getting rid of the deficit as anybody, but let's talk reality, not "scary" big numbers.
I wasn't trying to scare anyone. I was just pointing out what the Government's net worth is. There is no doubt that we have the most amazing economy in the history of the world. But there is also no doubt that we cannot grow ourselves out of this problem. Here is a great read on this subject:
http://econ.bu.edu/kotlikoff/Going%20Critical.pdf.pdf
Oh c'mon - to say "there is no doubt we cannot grow ourselves out of this problem" is a ridiculous statement that is completely unsupportable.
The difference between a 3.00% growth rate for the US economy and a 2.97% growth rate represents over $45 Trillion Dollars.
Surely we can discover methods of treating taxes and investments that will add more than that to the cumulative. We are spending, by some estimates, over $200 Billion per year in just collecting taxes now... Cutting that useless exense by half would almost make up the $35 Trillion difference all by itself.
To say we "can't grow ourselves" at a better rate than we are is simply not at all supportable at the levels you're concerned about.
How?
Burn and Pillage? ;o)
Seems unlikely that the Alternative Minimum Tax, which destroyed the Bush tax cut for more than a few middle-class earners, will be reformed in the current climate.
The AMT can kick in for individuals making as little as $35,750 and for families with incomes as low as $49,000.
And guess what the President can do: he can VETO the bill because of the pork.
(Unless BATFE was reorganized under Homeland Security or something...)
It's this cut and paste thing. I've never had to do that. I'll get somebdy to show me. Thanks
A grammar expert? Really!
Line item veto allows the Prez to VETO the PORK. AND NOT veto THE whole BILL...
only the pork.. or whatever don't appear to be pork but IS ham or bacon or ribs or hog maws or pigs feet or chiterlings.. and even CHICKEN can be VETOED..
Right now the WHOLE FARM MUST BE VETOED..
As was previously stated, "The first step is to admit you have a spending problem." Obviously, you're in denial about the past 4 years.
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.