Source

Bush proposes 2.77 trillion-dollar budget for 2007 fiscal year

www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-06 02:19:48

   WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President George W. Bush sent Congress a 2.77 trillion-dollar budget on Monday for the fiscal year of 2007, which provides big increases for defense but squeeze other government programs in an effort to cut budget deficit.

   The spending plan for the fiscal year beginning next Oct. 1 would be up by 2.3 percent from projected spending of 2.71 trillion dollars this year.FDR would be proud.

   "My administration has focused the nation's resources on our highest priority - protecting our citizens and our homeland," Bush said in his budget message.By squelching civil liberties

   "Working with Congress, we have given our men and women on the front lines in the war on terror the funding they need to defeat the enemy and detect, disrupt and dismantle terrorist plots and operations," he said.Have we?  Still inadequate last I heard

   Under the proposed budget, military spending would rise by 6.9 percent to 439.3 billion dollars in 2007. That is the biggest spending increase in the budget. The plan of 439.3 billion dollars does not include the costs of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Gov spending rises at the same time Haliburton stock does.  An increase and it still does not cover was costs?

   Last week, the administration said it would ask Congress for an additional 120 billion dollars to cover fighting for the rest of this year and the early part of 2007. The administration would seek another 18 billion dollars in hurricane relief this year.

   The Department of Homeland Security would also see a spending increase of about 5 percent from this year's funding of 30.8 billion dollars, not counting emergency spending to recover from last year's hurricanes in the gulf coast region.Another agency beareaucrasy that needs dismantling gets a budget increase

   On the other hand, the budget calls for the elimination of reduction of 141 government programs for a savings of 14.5 billion dollars.

   The spending in Medicare, the government's giant health care program for the elderly and disabled, would be cut by 35.9 billion dollars over five years. Similar reductions would be made in a number of other benefit programs.

   Other proposed savings in so-called mandatory spending, which means the payments are set in law for all who are eligible, include 4.99 billion dollars in changes in farm commodity programs, and 16.7 billion dollars in reforms of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the government program that backs private pensions.

   Nine of the 15 Cabinet-level agencies would see outright cuts in their discretionary spending for next year.Thats a start

   Even programs not targeted for elimination are subject to tight budgets including such previously favored agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, where spending overall essentially would be frozen at the current level next year.

   Set for higher spending are programs to address soaring energy costs through development of alternative fuels, rising medical bills through expanded health savings accounts and global competition through a new "American Competitiveness Initiative", unveiled in Bush's State of the Union address.I appreciate the idea but how about instead of expanding government spending and influence we deregulate the fuel industrues???

   The initiative would extend an expired business tax break for research and development, double the government's commitment to basic scientific research and train more teachers in science and math.Nice thought but will not help in most states

   According to the administration, the budget deficit for this year will soar to an all-time high of 423 billion dollars. That reflects increased spending for the Iraq war and hurricane relief.

   The administration says that the 2007 budget would keep the government on a path to achieve Bush's goal of cutting the federal deficit in half by 2009.Doubt it

   Congress will spend many months debating Bush's proposals and the budget lawmakers eventually adopt may differ significantly from the proposals. No shit it will be watered down and costs more

Bump for Bush worshippers and apologists.

How much of that is for the fence on the Mexican border?

I just rec'd my 2006 RNC Survey/Shameless Solicitation...sent them a copy of the Gringo Bush 00 dineros stop illegal immigration bill I stole from someone here.....probably gonna get audited now...whatever.



roy d...hate's most democrats but won't give republicans a free pass

Quoted: How much of that is for the fence on the Mexican border?

sadly Jorge Bush wont increase spending for this.

Bump for Bush haters and nit-wits.

What percent of GDP is that?

Quoted: How much of that is for the fence on the Mexican border?

This is the starting point not the finished legislation.  Your answer to either is likely $0.  A fence is a waste of money.  I say we just bite the bullet and annex Mexico or even clear down to the panama canal, that should be a tad easier to secure.  


On a sidenote you realize we have 1000's of miles of coast wide open?  How is a wall in a tiny section of it going to help and who would man it?

Quoted: What percent of GDP is that?

By last figures I saw nearing 20%.  GDP last year was short of 12 trillion.  FDR would need a change of pants for that.

Government spending up to the 60's was about 3% GDP.  Somehow we got by.

Spending is totally out of control and Bush and the Republican party needs to be reined in.  But while this is going on don't forget that the Democrats are saying "it's not enough".  So while spending is bad and needs to be brought under control, it would have been far worse with Kerry and a democrat contolled house and senate.

The numbers may be spot on, but I would be suspicious...  I bet there is only PART of the story being told here.....

The source is :www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-06 02:19:48

Come on.....a websource from COMMUNIST CHINA???????

Damn, do better then that!!!!  

If you don't want the budget to go up.... talk to your SENATOR and CONGRESSMEN, don't come bitching to a webforum.  

The president does NOT SPEND MONEY CONGRESS DOES!    The real solution is term limits on all politicians.  It should be like the early days, of the farmer / politician.  

Quoted: The numbers may be spot on, but I would be suspicious...  I bet there is only PART of the story being told here..... The source is :www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-06 02:19:48 Come on.....a websource from COMMUNIST CHINA??????? Damn, do better then that!!!!   If you don't want the budget to go up.... talk to your SENATOR and CONGRESSMEN, don't come bitching to a webforum.   The president does NOT SPEND MONEY CONGRESS DOES!    The real solution is term limits on all politicians.  It should be like the early days, of the farmer / politician.

You believe our elected officials still care what we think, laughable in itself.  This came up on Google news our media here would not give it the light of day because it makes their candidates >>Socialists Liberals<< look like hypocrites.  We need term limits in the house and Senate I agree but the houses must vote for that not likely, and even if they did they would all be grandfathered in and will still be able to run more than twice.  Short of massive turnover or third party swing no change is coming.

Quoted: The source is :www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-06 02:19:48 Come on.....a websource from COMMUNIST CHINA???????

I saw that too

Quoted: Quoted: Spending is totally out of control and Bush and the Republican party needs to be reined in.  But while this is going on don't forget that the Democrats are saying "it's not enough".  So while spending is bad and needs to be brought under control, it would have been far worse with Kerry and a democrat contolled house and senate. +1  and there is no other alternative.

Keep in mind that "earmarks" - spending that is added to bills (often late) for specific projects that various officials want, have increased almost 1000% in the last 10 years - along with the number of lobbyists in D.C. skyrocketing.

A lot of these increases in spending have to do with a growing way of doing business in D.C. that has little to do with what is best for the country, or in any "national interest"

I'm certainly not a tinfoil hatter, but given the specific strictures laid out by the founding fathers, I can see why people are starting to feel that the FEDERAL government is getting a little out of control

"My administration has focused the nation's resources on our highest priority - protecting our citizens and our homeland," Bush said in his budget message.

Excellent!

Maybe if ol' Slick Willy had focused on this when the WTC was attacked, our embassies in Africa were blown up and the Cole bombed we wouldn't have to deal with this today. But no, Bill was too busy selling tech to China and diddling his interns to be bothered with something as trivial as national security. God Dems suck.

Quoted: Bump for Bush haters and nit-wits.

Quoted:  "My administration has focused the nation's resources on our highest priority - protecting our citizens and our homeland," Bush said in his budget message. Excellent! Maybe if ol' Slick Willy had focused on this when the WTC was attacked, our embassies in Africa were blown up and the Cole bombed we wouldn't have to deal with this today. But no, Bill was too busy selling tech to China and diddling his interns to be bothered with something as trivial as national security. God Dems suck.

Hindsight is as useless as the Dims.  Can't go back and change it, only hope those who follow remember and we all know how likely that is.

Quoting one of our sworn enemies as an objective source reeks of treason. GWB sucks right now but we have not had a terrorist attack since 9/11 and the sandbox is fairly peaceful with the execption of a few isolated areas. sKeery would have done much worse, and raised our taxes to support his surrender to the UN, the chicoms, and anyone with a pointed stick.

Quoted: Quoting one of our sworn enemies as an objective source reeks of treason. GWB sucks right now but we have not had a terrorist attack since 9/11 and the sandbox is fairly peaceful with the execption of a few isolated areas. sKeery would have done much worse, and raised our taxes to support his surrender to the UN, the chicoms, and anyone with a pointed stick.

Please, it's The People's Republic of China. Sheesh, we insulted the muzzies last week. Let's not start a trend here. Besides, if you make em mad they won't buy anymore of our .gov debt.

Quoted: Quoting one of our sworn enemies as an objective source reeks of treason. GWB sucks right now but we have not had a terrorist attack since 9/11 and the sandbox is fairly peaceful with the execption of a few isolated areas. sKeery would have done much worse, and raised our taxes to support his surrender to the UN, the chicoms, and anyone with a pointed stick.

SKerry would have been worse but we are no safer and our liberties are being trodden on under the guise of "Security" you all know what "security" means.  Its all bullshit and what is worse you all know it and play along.

Probably the only thing that Bush has correct in his spending is the defense budget.  I believe we may need it after Europe and the Middle East enter WW III over cartoon issues.  If this one issue doesn't start the next big war, some other rediculous issue is bound to do it soon.

Other than that, our entire government needs fired and replaced.

M.L.

Quoted: Quoted: Bump for Bush haters and nit-wits. img183.echo.cx/img183/1899/heykoolaid2it.jpg

He said nothing about glock or colt

Money spent on the military is investment. Spending on social crap is waste. We all need to suck it up. We have lost our local FAA flight service station, we will most likely lose our locally manned TRACON which will make my job much more difficult, and I volunteer time to local police so they don't have to budget an aircraft to work LE surveilance. I homeschool my children freeing up education money and my wife stays home so some other worthy person can have a job out in the work force. Now we should be able to afford a damn border fence and men to enforce it!

Wouldn't get my vote strictly from a lack of effort in pro-2nd amendment legislation, appointing an illegal-sympathizer needledick as AG, and not doing anything about the southern border problem.

Quoted: Bump for Bush worshippers and apologists.

16 minutes went by and your flame war hadn't got off so well, eh?

Quoted: Please, it's The People's Republic of China. Sheesh, we insulted the muzzies last week. Let's not start a trend here. Besides, if you make em mad they won't buy anymore of our .gov debt.

Or open any more Wallyworlds....

Keep pullin' that (R) lever!  

At least if it was Democrats doing this we could hope for the day when the Republicans got into power and turned it all around...

Quoted: Quoted: Bump for Bush worshippers and apologists. 16 minutes went by and your flame war hadn't got off so well, eh?

can't really flame when the facts are lying bare for all to see. You can argue all day about theoretical handling of political issues. When it comes to fiscal policy the numbers speak for themselves.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bump for Bush worshippers and apologists. 16 minutes went by and your flame war hadn't got off so well, eh? can't really flame when the facts are lying bare for all to see. You can argue all day about theoretical handling of political issues. When it comes to fiscal policy the numbers speak for themselves.

I agree with you.  I haven't enjoyed how spendy the administration has been in any way, nor do I agree with it.  I think there are probably many who consider themselves Republicans or vote Republican who also feel the same way.  My basic math skills show that we're gonna have to pay for this all one way or another, and that it will likely come by means of taxation in one form or another.

Quoted: Quoted: What percent of GDP is that? By last figures I saw nearing 20%.  GDP last year was short of 12 trillion.  FDR would need a change of pants for that. Government spending up to the 60's was about 3% GDP.  Somehow we got by.

3% GDP? You aren't too big on 'facts', are you?

Gee, Mattl. You bump your Communist China-inspired post not 16 minutes after you make it, but once you are proven wrong, you dissappear? What gives?

2.7 in 2007 thats awesome, might as well spend it... Thanks to Wal*Mart All the rest of our money goes to China if it aint spent by the government.

Quoted: Gee, Mattl. You bump your Communist China-inspired post not 16 minutes after you make it, but once you are proven wrong, you dissappear? What gives?

How about Foxnews? www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184098,00.html

Makes cuts in the spending INCREASES that were already part of previous budgets. But a decrease in the increase is STILL an increase.

We can't afford this for too much longer. I realize there is a war on, several, but the domestic side of things leave no fucking excuses.



The only thing worse than this GOP spending spree would be if the Democreeps got ahold of the political reigns again.

Quoted: How about Foxnews? www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184098,00.html]

Better than the state-run Communist China source originally linked to, but it still doesn't address Mattl's stupid assertion that spending was 'about 3% GDP' in the 1960's. As the graph shows, spending as a percentage of GDP is broadly stable since the mid-1970s.

But like I said, I know that 'facts' don't really bother you guys much, so I didn't expect an actual response.

Quoted:

That avAtar is going to get you banned!


Now THAT'S A GOOD AVATAR!

Quoted: That avAtar is going to get you banned!

That would be a travesty, since my avatar is just good, clean 'art'.  

Quoted: Quoted: How about Foxnews? www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184098,00.html] Better than the state-run Communist China source originally linked to, but it still doesn't address Mattl's stupid assertion that spending was 'about 3% GDP' in the 1960's. As the graph shows, spending as a percentage of GDP is broadly stable since the mid-1970s. But like I said, I know that 'facts' don't really bother you guys much, so I didn't expect an actual response.

Remove your head from your ass and you'd realize that I wasn't trying to support the other posters "3% in the 60's" claim, just giving a better source for Jr's $2.77 trillion spending spree.

Quoted: Gee, Mattl. You bump your Communist China-inspired post not 16 minutes after you make it, but once you are proven wrong, you dissappear? What gives?

Did not disappear I have a life.  You know a job things to do?  As for the source I really do not see why they would have an axe to grind by laying out some of the budget details.  I dare say war with them is still a ways off.  An outside perspective is usually welcomed as it is more likely to be neutral or objective.  How is it any more biased than the usual lefty garbage we call news in this country?

Quoted: Did not disappear I have a life.  You know a job things to do?

Bump for the folks that claim spending was 3% GDP in the 1960s.

An outside perspective is usually welcomed as it is more likely to be neutral or objective.

Sure. But that generally doesn't hold true when that outside source is a state-run commie news agency. It's just amusing that you would link to it.

Quoted: Quoted: Did not disappear I have a life.  You know a job things to do? Bump for the folks that claim spending was 3% GDP in the 1960s.  An outside perspective is usually welcomed as it is more likely to be neutral or objective.   Sure. But that generally doesn't hold true when that outside source is a state-run commie news agency. It's just amusing that you would link to it.

For the first part I got that from an old economics professor I had, his info or your source or more likely some of both are off.  I suspect info could be found to "disprove" your source as well.  

What reason do they have to skew it?  It surprises me the average Chinese would care at all?  I think they are trying to appeal to Chinese elsewhere in the world.

Quoted: For the first part I got that from an old economics professor I had, his info or your source or more likely some of both are off.  I suspect info could be found to "disprove" your source as well.

Bump for idiots that can't just admit when they are wrong, and try to claim some bullshit about 'an old economics professor'.

Another cite.

Here is another pretty graph for you to ignore, but go look at Table 1.

... Love the avatar Tomislav!

... Right on bro!

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf

GDP. Deficit spending. Ect...

Page 292 is kinda interesting.

Quoted: tomislav, that is the second time you have introduced facts into this bush bash and I won't stand for it. Now start bashing bush for no reason before we get pissed at you.

Sorry.

I rescind my factual posts, and would like to replace them with:

This one is kinda pretty...

I really don't give two shits how much the GOP or the DNC spends. I still get my check every week ans d my stocks and retirement investments are quite good. The GOV gives more money to out of country agencies than is spent inside the US. It's been that way for ever. The real reasons behind the Cliton balanced budget/surpluss was the fact his administration nearly wiped out our military and space defence programs. Bush has been rebuilding what Clinfuk destroyed.

It's all in the entitlements.  Scale back Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.