Bush aims for defence budget rise as he seeks social cuts

[shamrock_uk]

Grrrr. Linky.

Bush seeks defence spending rise President George W Bush has proposed a $2.77 trillion (£1.6 trillion) annual budget, with more money for defence, but less for many social areas. Outlining spending plans for the 2007 fiscal year, Mr Bush has sought backing for a 6.9% jump in US military spending to $439.3bn. With the focus firmly on the threat of terrorism, Mr Bush also wants a 3.3% rise in homeland security funds. Cuts are proposed in areas such as health to help trim the budget deficit. Record deficit Mr Bush wants to cut spending on Medicare - the healthcare programme for the poor, elderly and disabled - by $35.9bn over the next five years. Savings are also sought in vocational education, justice and transportation

What annoys me most is that the Republican's are trumpeting fiscal responsibility as an excuse to cut social programmes whilst increasing the size of the whole budget yet again! Besides, the US could have taken on the whole planet several times with this years defence budget and still have won, so why keep increasing it? Who is left to fight?

Well, I'm sure that cutting vocational education will do a great deal for crime and productivity

And at least the poor and sick on Medicare can take comfort that their suffering will increase the fiscal well-being of the elite country.

[ 02-06-2006, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Azred]

There are no fiscally responsible people in Washington, D. C. anymore. The only difference between the major parties is in how they spend the money from the budget that keeps growing year after year.

[robertthebard]

It's really frustrating for me, especially after hearing the State of the Union. Affordable health care for whom? Certainly not for the people that really need it, yours truly included. 8 months with these headaches, still don't know why, and I don't qualify for medicare as it is, in spite of the fact that I can't stay outside for prolonged periods. Not a good thing for a carpenter, let me tell you. Not sure who the candidates will be next election, but I'm pretty sure I won't vote Republican.

[Timber Loftis]

They love to tout that they have cut nonmilitary spending every year. They have. Unfortunately they've gone hog wild giving out to their military contractor cronies.

I don't believe in deficit spending at all. Period. For no reason. If you can't run a war on your current income, you got no reason to go to war. Unless your war will bring about lots of mad phat lewt, but those days are long gone, sadly.

Though, it would be nice to raid the middle east and take all those awesome islamic articfacts, Allah knows they can't be trusted to safekeep them over the long term.

I agree with Azred witha small proviso. Bothparties are growing the government which I dislike, however I will maintain that the Democratic party wants to lead us off the left edge of the world into socialism and kook territory that in todays world is far more dangerous to everyone's well being than that of the Republicans. Unfortunately there is no viable alternative to these two parties as they have jointly maneuvered to ensure that they and they alone are the two choices with any real chance of winning.

[Azred]

I was going to mention closing any/all unneeded governmental agencies earlier, as well as dropping Social Security, but I didn't want to meander off the topic too terribly much. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

We could all write books about how to most effectively reduce the budget and control the out-of-control spending, but I think MagiK hit on probably the most effective idea--disband the two main political parties! [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] The Democrat and Republican parties are the two greatest obstacles to progress we have at this time.

[shamrock_uk]

What parties would replace them? The libertarians to the right, but who to the left?

[True_Moose]

Timber, you may be interested in some of Alexander Hamilton's work as the Secretary of Finance. He argues that keeping a moderate level of debt is good for the country. Can't remember the details (I read an 800 page bio of the guy last summer,) but it was interesting.

Parties have a way of coming and going over time. Remember that the Republicans and Democrats were totally different in the 1800s than they were today. But disbanding them, while on the surface a quick and easy solution, tends to result in unforeseen consequences. The collapse of the Whig party in the 1850s, combined with the rise of the Republican party, was one of the key factors in igniting the US Civil War.

EDIT: Clarification.

[ 02-06-2006, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: True_Moose ]

[Azred]

The Libertarians aren't really "right" or "left"; rather, they have some traits of both.

Originally posted by True_Moose: The collapse of the Whig party in the 1850s, combined with the rise of the Republican party, was one of the key factors in igniting the US Civil War.

Interesting; I've not heard this hypothesis before. Where did you hear or read this?

[robertthebard]

Anarchy rules...Let Bush finance the war out his own pocket. It will be a lot shorter then...