Beyond the debate about whether the spending priorities in President Bush’s fiscal year 2007 budget are appropriate — defense and homeland security are up sharply, while education and other domestic programs are being cut — is the question of whether the numbers really add up. Experts say they don’t, at least not related to Bush’s pledge to cut the deficit, The Washington Post reported.
The budget assumes no military expenditures in Iraq in Afghanistan beyond 2007 and that it won’t cost anything to adjust the alternative minimum tax system, which is supposed to tax the rich but is affecting the middle class. The budget also assumes that Congress will cut domestic spending every year after 2007. As Wall Street economists have noted, such assumptions are “unrealistic.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Mrage on Health care reform would save state money
- BlueJay on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- BlueJay on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Jail consultants straining patience
34 Comments
There is no such thing as budget cuts in Congress. They cannot make the tough decisions and will not, especially in an election year.
The President’s budget is only a proposal. Congress will hack it up and stuff it with so much pork that it will smell like a Jimmy Dean Sausage crackling on frying skillet. And once again, spending will be up from the previous year.
To quote Reverend Lowery,
“For war billions more but no more for the poor.”
Yeah funny! A eulogy is suppose to be about the person for who the funeral that you are speaking in.
I was not surprise that they used is as a political platform and to bash the Bush Administration.
Very disrespectful. There is a time and place for political speech, but a funeral seems to be a bad place. That is a Fred Phelps tatic.
Oh well. It’s Democrats so its ok. They did the same thing at Paul Wellstone’s funeral.
Yeah funny! A eulogy is suppose to be about the person for who the funeral that you are speaking in.
I was not surprise that they used is as a political platform and to bash the Bush Administration.
Very disrespectful. There is a time and place for political speech, but a funeral seems to be a bad place. That is a Fred Phelps tatic.
Oh well. It’s Democrats so its ok. They did the same thing at Paul Wellstone’s funeral.
Because Wellstone and King dedicated their lives to political fights, you wouldn’t want their funerals sullied with . . . politics.
Not like Reagan’s funeral, for instance, in which he was deified like a god.
No politics there . . .
The republicans don’t deny the content of the C. King eulogy, they just didn’t want it said in front of Bushytail setting right there. He’s not used to that type of treatment.
Joe Williams,
When Fred Phelps protests at a funeral, he typically is uninvited and does not speak on behalf of the family. When Joseph Lowery spoke at the funeral of Coretta Scott King, God rest her soul, he did so as an intimate, lifelong friend of the deceased and as a comrade in the civil rights struggle. We can take the silence from the King children as approval of his message.
Joe Williams, your comparison of Reverend James Lowery with Fred Phelps is misleading and offensive beyond words. I ask you, politely, to retract it.
I don’t think so CF. Because the extended members of MLK and CSK were upset that he and Carter made it political.
So no! It’s the truth. It is clearly disrespectful to the family to bash the President right in front of him for the purpose of getting your comments some air time for political purposes. It was offensive to MLK/CSK family and they are outrage.
CF,If you’d have said that Joe W. was a punk who seems to frequently mistake himself for someone who knows something, I’d would have been in complete agreement. However, your flames seem a little over the top.
EE,
If nothing succeeds like success, it’s also true that nothing exceeds like excess. And times like these call for extreme measures.
I like your email address, BTW: very on-topic.
Da truth shall set you free! CF, u b funny, yo.
http://www.martinlutherking.org/
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
CF,Wow, you sure you aren’t a NYC cab driver? :)
CF–
Touche.
Reading that post was like jumping into the ice bath after you’ve been baking in the sauna. Refreshing!
You’r post will get pulled shortly, but sometimes a man’s gotta say what a man’s gotta say.
Bush = Worst. President. Ever.
E.E.,FYI, XXX is our resident Referee and Secretary-Treasurer (Don’t flame me, Hog-man: I think it’s generally a good thing, and somebody’s gotta do it. . .).
I agree that CF’s post is a bit harsh, but. . . well, Joe, I know you have a good heart, but I think you mighta just earned this one. Seriously, do you know ANYTHING about Coretta Scott King, other than she was married to Martin?
And since you have a college degree (albeit from Hillside High), you really oughta know better.
Yee-haw! Thirty minutes and counting!
I feel like Slim Whitman at the end of Dr. Strangelove.
RIDE ‘EM COWBOY!
Brian,
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
(sniffle!) Man, I LOVE you guys!
Fornication, Brian, that cracks me up!
:))Glad you enjoyed it…won’t last long I’m sure :-D.
Pardon??
You guys are truly amazing.
Wasn’t this a post on Bush’s budget?
Did anyone read the article in the Washington Post about how Bush wrote in Social Security privitization into his budget proposal?
If that gets approved, people that depend on Social Security for their incomes are really gonna be screwed.
Good thing Coretta isn’t around any more to see that. If the cancer didn’t kill her, this would.
“I feel like Slim Whitman at the end of Dr. Strangelove.”
Actually, that great character actor went by the name of Slim Pickens, I believe.
EE,
You are SOOOOOO right! I realized this while I was on my way to an appointment, and couldn’t get back to repost. Oh, the shame! Not that there’s anything wrong with Slim Whitman, you understand. But Slim Pickens–WHAT an actor! “Why Mr. Taggert, you use your mouth purtier than a two-dollar whore!” Genius!
John Malkovich,
And your point was…?
Cookie has a point. These threads are too often hijacked by private disputes.
I know very well that CF, Brian, etc. know and care about Bush’s non-budget. My humble advice (certainly not from any presumed superior pedestal): Don’t let the rhetoric get to you. Stay on subject.
Rage, I hate to be confusing, but I’m in agreement with CF.
CF,Way to flame, man! You Rock!
I nominate Malkovich as the blog moron.Any seconds?
The Bush Budget is no more bogus than the Bush WMDs.
OOPS! Those were bogus too!
CF, I see they took down your post…took a while tho. I think you may have set some kind of record. Chalk one up for the blog Nazis. So much for free speech and the first amendment.
Rage, it’s Hog Rider. Nah, I’m not going to flame you. I’m in a good mood. I’ll just remind you about the “blessed are the peacemakers” thing.
X., to the extent I believe what I’ve been told, I admire the carpenter’s son. Unfortunately, his views aren’t particularly influentual these days!
You notice they took down Brian’s post, too?
Ah, yes, even an implication to a word any 8-year-old knows is verboten!
What a mature media culture! But I can say “shit,” can’t I? Hell, yeah, this fits within the friggin’ blog rules!
It’s their blog. . .and their server… and their press. And their income (the most important thing). I congratuate them for allowing some dissent on their servers. They’re basically, ya know, human beings. I AM NOT BEING SARCASTIC.
They’re just remaining within their perceived economic norm. Which will inevitably change. . . Sigh. . the whole language thing is so incredibly silly. . .but taboo words exist in every language. . . for a reason. The game continues.
Rage, XXX,
Having seen John Malkovich (who seems to be trying out his own version of “Being CF”) in action, I seem to have created a monster, what with the potty mouth and all.
Still, I have to say it was worth it. No grudges against the Eagle folks; it’s their party, and they’ll cry if they want to. I’m just amazed they left it up as long as they did.
Anyway, got to spend time with the fam.
“I feel like Slim Whitman at the end of Dr. Strangelove.”
CF: Ya got the wrong Slim. Slim Pickens was the missile rider in Dr. Strangelove. Slim Whitman provides the peace update theme song (Uno Paloma Blanca)on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Say, you haven’t been listening to Rush… nah. Me neither.
Outlander,
Indeed, though I beat you to the self-correction (see the post above).
Still, since you’re a fan of Slim Pickens, here’s a line for you:
“What in the Wide, Wide, World of Sports is a goin’ on here?!?”
I only heard a blurb and haven’t had a chance to look into this yet.
Did Bush actually push in something about privitization of social security into the budget?
Okay, here’s the link from NBC.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11235990/site/newsweek/from/RSS
From the link provided by Sum1:
“Nevertheless, it’s here. Unlike Bush’s generalized privatization talk of last year, we’re now talking detailed numbers. On page 321 of the budget proposal, you see the privatization costs: $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010, $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and another $630.533 billion for the five years after that, for a seven-year total of $712.144 billion.”
My question is this nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars all money that people could invest, or are there other costs being covered by these figures, or do we even have any idea?