WASHINGTON - President Bush's 2009 budget will virtually freeze most domestic programs and seek nearly $200 billion in savings from federal health care programs, a senior administration official said Thursday. The Bush budget also will likely exceed $3 trillion, this official said. ................. Bush will propose nearly $178 billion in savings from Medicare — a number that's nearly triple what he proposed last year. Much of the savings would come from freezing reimbursement rates for most health care providers for three years. An additional $17 billion would come from the Medicaid program, the state-federal partnership that provides health coverage to the poor............ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_budget I suggest a change in the US constitution. If a president has an approval rating less than 40% for 3 consecutive months, or less than 30% for one month - new presidential elections to be held. Everything major this guy - Bush touches turns to desuster. There is money for war, and illigal one, but no for most domestic programs.
How dare the President freeze the Budget!!! I need Schumer and Pelosi to send me some duffel bags of cash I demand the Government reduce taxes, increase spending, reduce the deficit, lower gasoline prices, give me a tax rebate, lower my interest payments and give me a trip to Disney Land all expenses paid
Agreed, war out of the equation, Bush has done a great deal of good for the economy in reducing taxes, especially after what happened on 9/11, that coupled with the over taxing that Clinton did. The problem is, Bush has not adequately curbed spending.. Had he both staved off spending and reduced taxes, forget about a deficit, we would be paying off the national debt. A presidents approval rating is not a good indication of their performance. Remember, Bush had close to 90% at one time, and he was not that much different in his spending as he is today... I leave the war out of this, because in the overall scheme of things, it is a pittance compared to the over abundance of earmarks and social spending that is killing us.
No, you see, the war really is killing many of us. And I don't mean just financially. I'll never understand people who are so flippant about such things.
I would disagree, the last three years he has kept spending down, it was the first four that he was reckless in spending. Also it doesn't matter how many spending cuts the president proposes the actual details of the bills are worked out in the halls of congress.
Terrorists are killing Americans. If we are not fighting them over there then the teerorists will be over here killing Americans.
Only problem is, you aren't fighting terrorists for protecting Americans; you're fighting civilians for oil.
But there is not one shred of evidence that we are trying to take their oil. We want to see a stable source of supply. Yeah, oil is what makes the Middle East important. We cannot let radicals take over a large percentage of the world's supply of oil because that is what feeds the world economy. Many of you guys were not yet conceived or were still in diapers during the 1973 oil embargo. That was--or should have been--a wake-up call to all the Western economies. That might eliminate an awful lot of presidents. Leaders--right or wrong--do not always make popular decisions. Harry Truman, who today is viewed as being a good president, went out of office with an approval rating of 23%.
Yawn.. I thought we were talking about money? Can you ever stay on topic? Why does every thread in the P/R have to segway to Ron Paul, Bad Bush, The War, in threads that have nothing to do with those subjects to begin with? Back on topic.. Step one, Budget Freeze Step two, Start eliminating programs in the budget starting with the social spending Hopefully we make it to step two. An what oil would that be? You do realize that the US not pumping a drop of oil out if Iraq right? Is that what you are trying to imply? I just want to be clear on that. Would you mind clarifying a bit? Your contention if flawed.
And how do you propose to cut social spending? What do you do with all of the people who have paid in, and are dependent on the system? Why not cut the budget for troops in Korea, Germany and Japan? Why not cut all of the foreign subsidies to Pakistan, Russia, Egypt, Israel etc.? Politically, it's almost impossible to cut domestic spending. But foreign spending is more than 1/3 of the budget. There is a lot of room to cut there.
? I did not say Social Security... Because it is necessary, and the over all scheme of things, we spend very little on the military by comparison to our social spending irresponsibilities, entitlements, earmarks, and stupid things like paying $40,000 PER DAY to follow Obama around the country. Does Ron Paul have a HUGE security detail protecting him at $40k/day with my money? Where on earth do you get your erroneous numbers from? 1% of the federal budget is spent on Foreign Affairs.. 1% is hardly 1/3 of the entire budget. We spend 57% on social spending 18% on the Military 13% on interest on the nation debt 1% on Homeland Security 7% on Administrative Agencies 2% on transportation 2% on "other" Even if you try to include the entire military budget, and other in the equation, you still dot arrive at 1/3 of the entire budget. (source: House Budget Committee Minority Staff) Yeah, a lot of room in that 1%... Again, it's extremely small in the overall scheme of things. And, yes, you can cut domestic spending quite easily. We've been doing that for some time now, including cutting down that administrative number. The EOP spending has gone down 35% alone last year, meanwhile, congress went up by 7%. The start needs to take place in Congress... Most do not realize that you can become a senator, serve one term and then receive $15k a month for the rest of your life... That's insane. There should be NO pension what so ever IMO. Why are we still paying these people? Since you mentioned SS above... Most do not realize that a great many people receiving SS never paid into it in the first place. A great many people receiving SS should not be getting it at all. It was broke the day it was started. It was nothing more than a feel good entitlement program instituted by a desperate drunk momma's boy named Franklin. There are a whole series of worthless programs created in that period of time in our history. There are probably an equal number of good programs that came out of that era as well, many withing the arts, conservation, preservation and innovation. The thing is, FDR was accustomed to entitlements. Mommy kept him clothed, fed, and living without need for his entire life. He never had to work a day in his life. He grew so used to spending what was a seemingly limitless supply of money, its only natural he would seek to the same for others. FDR IMO, is the inventor of the modern day spend and promise gift giving liberal... Hell, Hillary Clinton's own Christmas commercial illustrated that point to no end. I adimently disagree with the re-distribution of wealth. It does not solve problems, nor does it create more wealth. When you have nearly 2/3's of the US budget destined for wealth reassignment, cuts from other areas are not even going to make a dent.
Ok, so cut medical care for old people and the poor. Then what? I'm no socialist, but if you think you can cut spending and no one is going to get hurt, then you're being very careful in how you evaluate any cuts. No. Ron Paul doesn't like to spend taxpayer money. I feel like I am talking to a wall. Add in discretionary spending, which is almost exclusively foreign aid. Then let's talk about all of the money the Pentagon has lost and refuses to answer for. For example, where is all of the cash the US military has handed out to Iraqi militants? Where is that in the budget? I know one Congressman who voluntarily opted out of the pension plan. What about the size of the Dept. of ED? The Department of Energy? Why attack small stuff, and overlook the over 100 Federal Agencies, many of whom do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING? As long as you have a tax system, which is the guarantor for a lender of last resort, you will never address these problems. Politically, it's not feasible to cut spending for entitlements. You have to change the system, and in order to do that, you have to understand how the system works.