"Support the troops"

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

So you think the gun issue, religious issue, gay issue, and the art issue is more important than the fiscal and immigration issues? If so, I won't waste time explaining my opinion.

I think there is irony when Bush fails fiscally by running over budget by funding ( over funding) a war that they chose, that that is a liberal act. I don't think the right can have it both ways....If you believe the war is justified, then fund it, but don't call Bush a Liberal when your cause causes the huge defecit.

[SilverRP]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think there is irony when Bush fails fiscally by running over budget by funding ( over funding) a war that they chose, that that is a liberal act. I don't think the right can have it both ways....If you believe the war is justified, then fund it, but don't call Bush a Liberal when your cause causes the huge defecit.

But they sure try!!!!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think there is irony when Bush fails fiscally by running over budget by funding ( over funding) a war that they chose, that that is a liberal act. I don't think the right can have it both ways....If you believe the war is justified, then fund it, but don't call Bush a Liberal when your cause causes the huge defecit.

by the same token, the dems can't cry about his spending--and then they turn around and present a budget that's 20 billion more than he asked for.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Danzig

by the same token, the dems can't cry about his spending--and then they turn around and present a budget that's 20 billion more than he asked for.

But it wouldn't be if the troops weren't there and they certainly need to be funded. As do domestic programs...so...what ends up getting cut? Education, environment, infrastructure repairs, domestic terrorism support for cities, etc

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

But it wouldn't be if the troops weren't there and they certainly need to be funded. As do domestic programs...so...what ends up getting cut? Education, environment, infrastructure repairs, domestic terrorism support for cities, etc

i don't think the war is included in that budget, but it was something i read the other day, so i'm not sure what all they had in it.
but rather than cut necessities, i'd like to cut all the pork. it's always a scare tactic, threaten women, infants, widows and vets--but hey, we need three more federally funded buildings that can be named after robert byrd (for instance).

[Danzig]

and now i read further down, and see that risk put up some stuff from the proposed budget.



why is it tho, that the house of reps can almost unanimously pass an earmarks/lobbyist bill, but can't even come close on the really and truly important things that need to be worked on?

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and now i read further down, and see that risk put up some stuff from the proposed budget.



why is it tho, that the house of reps can almost unanimously pass an earmarks/lobbyist bill, but can't even come close on the really and truly important things that need to be worked on?

Please describe your boo-bees.






Size and general condition.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

by the same token, the dems can't cry about his spending--and then they turn around and present a budget that's 20 billion more than he asked for.

Once again, the truth is considerably more complicated than a one-sentence attack on the Dems (or the Repubs, for that matter):

I'll post a link to "The Fight Over Appropriations: Myths and Reality," but here's the pertinent part about the $20 billion:

<<Despite the Administration’s sharp criticism of
the planned congressional appropriations
levels, the overwhelming bulk of the $53.1
billion increase in appropriations that Congress
plans for 2008 — 81 percent of it — consists of
increases the Administration itself has
requested in military and homeland security
programs.
•
The main dispute between the Administration
and Congress is over a $21 billion difference in
domestic appropriations.
•
The Administration proposes to cut these
programs $16 billion below the 2007 levels
(after adjusting for inflation) and threatens to
veto bills that do not contain these cuts.
Congress would reject these cuts and instead
provide a modest increase for these programs
of $5 billion, or 1.4 percent. The main dispute
between Congress and the Administration is
thus whether to cut programs funded in
domestic appropriations bills, not whether to
make large increases in them.
•
Under the funding levels that Congress plans,
domestic discretionary programs would grow
more slowly than revenues, and thus would not
create pressure for tax increases.>>

That $20 billion is actually found by Bush's request to cut $16 billion from domestic programs, while the Dems want to raise it $5 billion from current levels. They're adding the cut and the proposed actual raise together. Pretty misleading, and doesn't at all address the big increases in defense and Homeland Security Bush does want, none of which are going to the soldiers overseas, as that is considered emergency spending.

And more:

<In other words, the bulk of the allegedly irresponsible increase in funding for appropriated programs reflects the President’s own request for additional military and security funding. The increase that congressional leaders plan for domestic discretionary programs is quite small.
The notion that this modest domestic increase of $5 billion, which follows several years of cuts in these programs, could have a noticeable effect on the $14 trillion U.S. economy is not credible. Nor is the claim that funding for domestic discretionary programs would put significant pressure on the
deficit and force a tax increase, since these programs would grow less rapidly than either the economy or tax revenues. >

Once again, a few extra minutes spent researching something can yield a much more complicated picture.

Here's the link to the whole article:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Once again, the truth is considerably more complicated than a one-sentence attack on the Dems (or the Repubs, for that matter):

I'll post a link to "The Fight Over Appropriations: Myths and Reality," but here's the pertinent part about the $20 billion:

<<Despite the Administration’s sharp criticism of
the planned congressional appropriations
levels, the overwhelming bulk of the $53.1
billion increase in appropriations that Congress
plans for 2008 — 81 percent of it — consists of
increases the Administration itself has
requested in military and homeland security
programs.
•
The main dispute between the Administration
and Congress is over a $21 billion difference in
domestic appropriations.
•
The Administration proposes to cut these
programs $16 billion below the 2007 levels
(after adjusting for inflation) and threatens to
veto bills that do not contain these cuts.
Congress would reject these cuts and instead
provide a modest increase for these programs
of $5 billion, or 1.4 percent. The main dispute
between Congress and the Administration is
thus whether to cut programs funded in
domestic appropriations bills, not whether to
make large increases in them.
•
Under the funding levels that Congress plans,
domestic discretionary programs would grow
more slowly than revenues, and thus would not
create pressure for tax increases.>>

That $20 billion is actually found by Bush's request to cut $16 billion from domestic programs, while the Dems want to raise it $5 billion from current levels. They're adding the cut and the proposed actual raise together. Pretty misleading, and doesn't at all address the big increases in defense and Homeland Security Bush does want, none of which are going to the soldiers overseas, as that is considered emergency spending.

And more:

<In other words, the bulk of the allegedly irresponsible increase in funding for appropriated programs reflects the President’s own request for additional military and security funding. The increase that congressional leaders plan for domestic discretionary programs is quite small.
The notion that this modest domestic increase of $5 billion, which follows several years of cuts in these programs, could have a noticeable effect on the $14 trillion U.S. economy is not credible. Nor is the claim that funding for domestic discretionary programs would put significant pressure on the
deficit and force a tax increase, since these programs would grow less rapidly than either the economy or tax revenues. >

Once again, a few extra minutes spent researching something can yield a much more complicated picture.

Here's the link to the whole article:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

Holy smokes..How can I follow up that info
You can be my ghost poster from now on

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Holy smokes..How can I follow up that info
You can be my ghost poster from now on

Now you all know what I did in high school instead of date. Me big nerd. Now me big nerd who can Google fast.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Now you all know what I did in high school instead of date. Me big nerd. Now me big nerd who can Google fast.

What about you,,, MenuInWisk?

Yeah I don't like to use Google to get my point across. I think it's a little condescending towards others to do so. If I can't recall what i've read and can't articulate what I believe without using a search engine, then i've become nothing more than a parrot.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

by the same token, the dems can't cry about his spending--and then they turn around and present a budget that's 20 billion more than he asked for.

Dannie......what are you wearing right now?