Bush Sends Congress $2.90T Spending Plan

[chapmac]

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.

you remind me of an old timer republican

sensible and reasonable

[forrestkc]

I still dissagree. If someone knows a program will go bankrupt due to innaction, and this program is so vital to the well being of a lot of Americans, and they choose to do nothing for political reasons, they are immoral. That is what the Democrats have done. The program may never require any cuts if the Democrats would actually work with the President to find real sollutions.

As I see it, there are no solutions without privatization, with the exception of a couple of things Democrats won't agree to. One is an immediate lock box. The second is an immediate ban on abortion. The third is encouraging a baby boom among married couples. If the government did those things, the crisis with regard to Social Security would go away, and no cut in benefits would be needed. In addition, privatization wouldn't be required.

The last thing we need is a baby boom. Over population is probably the single largest threat to our environment and way of life.

The biggest liability in the short term say next 20 years with Medicare and Social Security is the fact that the government owes it so much money. As much as I liked getting a small tax cut, the fact of the matter is those tax cuts were largely funded out of surpluses in payroll taxes. So you can't really blame the dems for their worsening future short falls. The Republicans over the last 12 years grew the fiscal size of government more than ever before. They did so by borrowing against Social Security and Medicare. By the time Bush leaves office, he will have added more to the national debt than all previous presidents combined. The fact is, when Bush took office he inherited massive budget surpluses and he squandered them. If we would have put Social Security and Medicare in a lock box back in 2001, the programs would be doing fine today. However, you do that today, and you would be at least doubling the size of the budget deficit.

[forrestkc]

Once again, I dissagree with you. We need a baby boom and there is no over population crisis. This is yet another lie of the liberal left. It is completely refuted by Pat Buchanan's book, "Death of The West," and he provides plenty of evidence to substantiate his claims. "Single largest threat to our environment and way of life?" What a bunch of bunk! What happened to global warming and the internal combustian engine? To believe that over population is a problem is to say that God didn't know what he was doing when he created the world, as it is not large enough. That is utter nonsense.

Carbon emissions are directly tied to population and industrialization. People don't have so many kids now because they cant afford them. Anymore it takes 2 incomes to really get by. So, for every kid you are looking at day care, healthcare, a larger home, possibly private school, and so on. We were shelling out 700 dollars a month for one kid in Day School.

[forrestkc]

Once again, I dissagree with you. We need a baby boom and there is no over population crisis. This is yet another lie of the liberal left. It is completely refuted by Pat Buchanan's book, "Death of The West," and he provides plenty of evidence to substantiate his claims. "Single largest threat to our environment and way of life?" What a bunch of bunk! What happened to global warming and the internal combustian engine? To believe that over population is a problem is to say that God didn't know what he was doing when he created the world, as it is not large enough. That is utter nonsense.

Carbon emissions are directly tied to population and industrialization. People don't have so many kids now because they cant afford them. Anymore it takes 2 incomes to really get by. So, for every kid you are looking at day care, healthcare, a larger home, possibly private school, and so on. We were shelling out 700 dollars a month for one kid in Day School.

I never claimed it was cheap to provide for a family. Liberalism helped to create the necessity for a 2 family income as well, by pushing women into the work place. As the economy got accustomed to the idea, wages dropped to a point where it does take two incomes to make it. Had things remained as they were, where the husband worked and the wife raised the children, the one income would have risen to a higher place than it currently is, because of supply and demand. You take half of the work force away, and watch wages go up. I did not intend to go in this direction, but once again we find more problems created by liberals.

As far as "carbon emissions" go, so what? I don't buy into all the liberal nonsense of how our being an industrialized society is destroying the environment. In addition, if it is, one of those people that come about as a result of a baby boom might be the one that discovers more energy efficient ways of doing things.

You have it backwards on women in the workplace. Stagflation starting during the Nixon years is largely what promoted women to start entering into the workplace in droves. Most women started working because deindustrialization was resulting in declining wages relative to inflation in the 70s which forced many women to go to work in order for most Middle Class households to stay afloat. The world labor market that we compete with today forces both spouses to work in order to maximize our workforce and productivity.

[ted]

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.

you remind me of an old timer republican

sensible and reasonable

I think this thread should be moved to the "Humor & Jokes" area.

t.

[kat8585]

I still dissagree. If someone knows a program will go bankrupt due to innaction, and this program is so vital to the well being of a lot of Americans, and they choose to do nothing for political reasons, they are immoral. That is what the Democrats have done. The program may never require any cuts if the Democrats would actually work with the President to find real sollutions.

As I see it, there are no solutions without privatization, with the exception of a couple of things Democrats won't agree to. One is an immediate lock box. The second is an immediate ban on abortion. The third is encouraging a baby boom among married couples. If the government did those things, the crisis with regard to Social Security would go away, and no cut in benefits would be needed. In addition, privatization wouldn't be required.

[kat8585]

The last thing we need is a baby boom. Over population is probably the single largest threat to our environment and way of life.

Overpopulation is due in large part to all the illegals.

[kat8585]

I never claimed it was cheap to provide for a family. Liberalism helped to create the necessity for a 2 family income as well, by pushing women into the work place. As the economy got accustomed to the idea, wages dropped to a point where it does take two incomes to make it. Had things remained as they were, where the husband worked and the wife raised the children, the one income would have risen to a higher place than it currently is, because of supply and demand. You take half of the work force away, and watch wages go up. I did not intend to go in this direction, but once again we find more problems created by liberals.

As far as "carbon emissions" go, so what? I don't buy into all the liberal nonsense of how our being an industrialized society is destroying the environment. In addition, if it is, one of those people that come about as a result of a baby boom might be the one that discovers more energy efficient ways of doing things.

As usual, Butero, you are right on. I still say you should run for an office, I'd vote for you.

[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.

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

I am going to go out on a limb here. Social Security is a handout, whether we care to admit it or not. People pay into it and collect way beyond what they should. The benefits under the various SS schemes are far too generous and the whole SS set up is a fraud, a legalized racket that, if it existed in the private sector, would be shut down by Eliot Ness and his Untouchables. Citizens have been duped into thinking their payments go into some sort of special,magical fund that generates a whopping 2 or 3 % return, yet they miraculously believe that entitles them to, what amounts to a monthly check just shy of what they used to earn! People are either ignorant or deluded.

Medicare and Medicaid, while noble endeavors, have led to yet another corrupt agency. Why is the government in the health care provision business, anyway? Do you have a blessed clue how massive the health care budget is in America? It is embarrassing! The price tag for the war pales by comparison. The fact that you have no problem with money being spent within the country at the expense of it being spent without shows how ego centric you are. This kind of thinking--citizens demanding more and more services from the government while blinded to the evil all around them--is what contributed to the fall of every great nation in the past.

The only part of your post I agree with is how large a chunk of my income goes to fund these and other social programs. I am a minister, and therefore self employed for income tax purposes. If there are any other ministers at Worthy, I am sure they, like me, shudder every quarter as they watch ungodly amounts of their salaries go down the toilet, never to be seen again, so that other people, blissfully unaware of our existence, can live on what has been taken from us. And you too.

But, hey, it's America. And I would rather be here than anywhere else.

[kat8585]

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

I am going to go out on a limb here. Social Security is a handout, whether we care to admit it or not. People pay into it and collect way beyond what they should. The benefits under the various SS schemes are far too generous and the whole SS set up is a fraud, a legalized racket that, if it existed in the private sector, would be shut down by Eliot Ness and his Untouchables. Citizens have been duped into thinking their payments go into some sort of special,magical fund that generates a whopping 2 or 3 % return, yet they miraculously believe that entitles them to, what amounts to a monthly check just shy of what they used to earn! People are either ignorant or deluded.

Medicare and Medicaid, while noble endeavors, have led to yet another corrupt agency. Why is the government in the health care provision business, anyway? Do you have a blessed clue how massive the health care budget is in America? It is embarrassing! The price tag for the war pales by comparison. The fact that you have no problem with money being spent within the country at the expense of it being spent without shows how ego centric you are. This kind of thinking--citizens demanding more and more services from the government while blinded to the evil all around them--is what contributed to the fall of every great nation in the past.

The only part of your post I agree with is how large a chunk of my income goes to fund these and other social programs. I am a minister, and therefore self employed for income tax purposes. If there are any other ministers at Worthy, I am sure they, like me, shudder every quarter as they watch ungodly amounts of their salaries go down the toilet, never to be seen again, so that other people, blissfully unaware of our existence, can live on what has been taken from us. And you too.

But, hey, it's America. And I would rather be here than anywhere else.

People who get Social Security don't get enough to live on. And I believe it never should have been started in the first place. But what disabled people get is really pathetic. I know somoene who gets it, and they get a whopping $1070 a month, after the $30 raise they got a few months ago.

Disabled people should get a living wage, and the rest of the program should be scuttled, or at least privatized.