Bush Sends Congress $2.90T Spending Plan

[apothanein kerdos]

I saw the "T" and I was like, "What does that stand for?"

Seriously, 2.9 trillion? Wow.

[apothanein kerdos]

And you would propose what? A return to the days of tax and spend liberals like Jimmy Carter?

I think he is saying that it is indecent and immoral to pay for elective wars on the backs of the poor and elderly. Do you think that the poor and elderly should be the only ones who bear the financial burdens of the war in Iraq?

thank you forest

i find the thought of the a permanent tax cut to be the axis of evil when at the expense of the elderly and impovershed

C'mon...I'm an economic liberal, but I'm tired of people who believe like I do making stupid comments. The top percent of Americans are paying for the war in Iraq...they pay the majority of taxes. People in lower brackets pay little to no taxes (I know this from experience).

[forrestkc]

C'mon...I'm an economic liberal, but I'm tired of people who believe like I do making stupid comments. The top percent of Americans are paying for the war in Iraq...they pay the majority of taxes. People in lower brackets pay little to no taxes (I know this from experience).

I think you are under a misconception here. Bush is not proposing cuts in programs paid out of general revenue for the war. Instead, he is proposing cuts in programs paid out of FICA taxes for the war. FICA taxes are overwhelmingly paid by the poor and the middle class. In fact, no income over 90k a year is subject to payroll taxes. We are already funding deficits in general revenue out of current surpluses in the Social Security and Medicare funds. Now the Bush Administration is proposing that Medicare and Medicaid benefits be cut to partially offset costs of the war in Iraq. So basically, the sacrifice is indeed being placed primarily on the poor and the retires, not the rest of us.

[kat8585]

i have faith that there are enough rational americans to tell him to put that budget some place without sunshine

He has zero chance of getting it enacted. It certainly is a clear window into his moral priorities though. What kind of a person believes that it is a just and moral thing to place the costs of an elective war primarily on seniors and the poor? Where is the shared sacrifice in that?

he wears a strategically placed american flag pin on one lapel and now his regards for the low to middle income citizens

on the other

He gave us tax cuts that the Democrats now want to take away. They didn't want us to have them, and have been chomping at the bit to take them away ever since.

[TheoMike]

One of the problems is that most Americans don't understand how government works and how the economy works. The people mistakingly think that the government has this big pile of money to spend on them in the form of social and entitlement programs. What they don't understand is that all these people living off government handouts are doing so at the burden of the taxpayer.

People keep demanding more and more stuff from the government, and they are only too happy to take from we producers and give to them, the takers.

Edited February 6, 2007 by TheoMike

[forrestkc]

One of the problems is that most Americans don't understand how government works and how the economy works. The people mistakingly think that the government has this big pile of money to spend on them in the form of social and entitlement programs. What they don't understand is that all these people living off government handouts are doing so at the burden of the taxpayer.

People keep demanding more and more stuff from the government, and they are only too happy to take from we producers and give to them, the takers.

Ok, you want an elective war in Iraq that has cost the government hundreds of billions of dollars thus far, but the president is proposing that war be paid for out of Medicare and Medic aid. The people who receive Medicare have paid into the system through payroll taxes their entire life. Those payroll taxes were to pay for Social Security and Medicare, not wars. The government has been raiding the system for well over 20 years to float shortfalls in general revenue. Now the president is proposing that the system that they paid into be further raided to pay for an elective war. Thus the financial sacrifices he is proposing to pay for this war he is being laid solely on the backs of retires and the poor. That is immoral.

If we want a war, then we all should pay for that war, we ought not just shift the burden on to retires and the poor.

[chapmac]

One of the problems is that most Americans don\'t understand how government works and how the economy works. The people mistakingly think that the government has this big pile of money to spend on them in the form of social and entitlement programs. What they don\'t understand is that all these people living off government handouts are doing so at the burden of the taxpayer.

People keep demanding more and more stuff from the government, and they are only too happy to take from we producers and give to them, the takers.

since when was social security and medicare a hand out

the last time i looked at a pay stub there was a rather substantial part of my pay check deducted for these items

one the of biggest problems facing americans is that so many of them accept everything they hear at face value

its my guess that many of the same people who believe in that big pile of money believe in santa claus and that the money for this war is hand picked off a tree in the backyard of the white house

i do not consider medicare or medicade to be a burden

it is a blessing for a whole lot of people

i thank god i have adequate insurance

but many a soldier who lost their sight or limb are dependent upon these burdensome hand outs you refer to

[forrestkc]

Forrest, your argument is very deceitful. You are acting as though deductions for Medicare and Social Security are actually going into a locked box for those purposes only, and they are not. Where was your outcry up to now? Were you complaining when under a Democrat President, back in the 60s, it was established we could use the surplus for things not related to the programs? I am all for an immediate locked box, but your claims this is something totally new and unheard of is a lie. There was a time when the American people were so dumbed down they would have believed this type of propaganda, but no more.

It is one thing for the government to go to unified budgeting, and issue treasure notes against surpluses in Social Security and Medicare. It is certainly wrong, and it certainly is a massive liability toward the future solvency of the programs, but it never required that current beneficiaries who had paid into the programs their entire lives to take a benefit cut to pay for other government liabilities. In the past the govenment has raided surpluses in the programs, not the programs themselves.

That is what wrong and immoral about the budget Bush is proposing. He is basically asking retires to take a cut in Medicare benefits, to pay for his war in Iraq. There is no shared sacrifice in that. He is basically asking that we pay for the war on the backs of the poor and retires because they would be the only ones impacted by this. Why should the financial burden of this war be laid upon retires and the poor?

[forrestkc]

The liberals that are opposing any type of Social Security Reform are going to see further cuts in benefits down the road because of their irresponsible policies. Eventually, we will get to a point where 2 tax payers will pay for 1 retiree. At that point, more cuts in benefits will occur, and we will have liberals to thank for playing politics. If we had a true locked box, we could keep the programs solvent longer. In addition, our sin of abortion is also playing into this problem. As a society, killing 1.5 to 2 million children each year is leading to a drastically reduced future work force. Liberalism is destroying the very program they are best loved for starting. That is wrong, and that is immoral.

And that is all beside the point. No one is arguing that there are not future issues with the programs. However, that has nothing to do with medicare recipients taking a cut in benefits to offset the costs of the war.

[forrestkc]

Actually it does. The point is that we are headed toward drastic cuts in benefits as a result of liberal policies anyway. Recipients may as well get used to it. Both parties are doing things that are not in the best interest of these programs. Bush attempted to save Social Security, and Democrats weren't even willing to discuss making any changes. Bush even reached out to Congress and gave them a chance to give their own proposals, and they have done nothing. If it is wrong and immoral for Bush to propose cuts in benefits because of the war, it is just as wrong to allow cuts in future benefits to play politics, which the Democrats are doing.

No, it really doesn't. It is one thing if a program requires cuts because it is running a financial deficit. It is another thing if a program that recipients paid into is being cut to divert the money to pay for a war. That is the difference.

If this war is so important, then the financial burden for it ought to be shouldered by everyone, not just our poor and our retires.

On a side note, Bush withdrew his Social Security privatization from debate because he was unwilling to accept any ideas that did not require privatization.