Republican budget: $800 billion in the red, NOT including the war...and no way to pay for it

February 5, 2008

Congress Looks Askance at Bush's Budget

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 4:02 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top administration officials were on Capitol Hill Tuesday

defending President Bush's $3.1 trillion budget plan from attacks by

Democrats that it adds almost $800 billion to U.S. debt and doesn't pay for

the war in Iraq.

Democrats on two Senate panels tossed brickbats at Bush's budget and some

key Republicans criticized it as well as lawmakers made it plain that they

would ignore the president's proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid

spending.

At the Senate Budget Committee, White House budget chief Jim Nussle put in a

combative performance, returning criticism of Bush's budget with attacks on

lawmakers for not fully funding his long-pending war request and challenging

them to join Bush in curbing the rapid growth of benefit programs.

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., slammed the budget for piling

almost $800 million in debt onto the government's books, both in bonds held

by investors at home and abroad and IOUs in the Social Security trust funds.

''The debt has done nothing under this president's watch but skyrocket,''

charged Conrad.

''Then let's open up mandatory spending,'' Nussle shot back, referring to

the spiraling growth of benefit programs like Medicare.

Top panel Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire again criticized the Bush

blueprint for having ''some serious flaws from the standpoint of accuracy

and even more serious flaws from the standpoint of policy.'' But he also

attacked Democrats for assuming phony revenue boosts when passing a

congressional budget plan last year.

A few floors below, at the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over taxes

and Medicare, the atmosphere was more sedate, but the Bush budget plan

wasn't faring any better.

''A good budget must be realistic,'' Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said at a

hearing featuring Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Baucus, Finance

Committee chairman, said key aspects of the Bush budget -- proposed cuts in

health programs, making Bush's tax cuts permanent and omitting war costs in

predicting a budget surplus by 2012 -- failed that test.

The top Republican on the panel, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, chided the

administration for not considering the costs of adjusting the alternative

minimum tax in future years and acknowledged that people's attention was

already shifting to the next administration. ''The focus is not going to be

on the president's budget. The focus is going to be on what the next

president will do.''

Paulson defended the first-ever $3 trillion federal budget proposal

introduced Monday, saying its emphasis on a pro-growth tax system,

entitlement reform and a balanced budget was in the best interest of the

country. But his opening remarks centered on prodding the Senate to act

quickly on an economic stimulus package aimed at keeping the country out of

recession.

Bush's budget for fiscal year 2009 beginning Oct. 1 proposes spending just

below $3.1 trillion. Last year, he proposed $2.9 trillion for the current

budget year, but the administration now estimates that spending in fiscal

2008 will also exceed $3 trillion once all the costs of the continuing war

in Iraq are included.

Excluding the war, Bush is proposing an 8 percent increase in the Pentagon's

base budget, to $515.4 billion, next year. Overall defense spending would

decline from $670.5 billion this year to $588.3 billion in Bush's 2009

budget. The request includes just $70 billion in initial war costs, a figure

certain to be exceeded when Bush leaves office.

Some of the spending increases would be offset by prescribing $196 billion

in savings to Medicare and Medicaid programs over the next five years and

reducing or eliminating 151 programs, saving $18 billion.

''The (Medicare) proposals are not realistic. We already have doctors who

will not accept Medicare patients,'' said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., normally

a Bush ally.

But the effort to slow spending in those programs also reflects Bush's

determination to preserve his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts after he's gone. Many

of those tax cuts expire in 2010, and the cost of writing them into

permanent law would be $635 billion over five years.

Democrats also said the White House's projection that the budget deficit

will hit $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, just under the

$413 billion record set four years ago, was overly optimistic, depending on

rosy economic forecasts and understating war costs.

We gave Junior our credit card and man did he go to town and have a

blast.

Too bad Hillary or Obama will be stuck with the bill. Funny how it's

going to be either a black man or a woman to clean up after a rich

white guy. Some things never change.

Do you really care how deeply in debt we go? Don't you realize that the

actuaries have it all figured out? You'll be dead, gone, buried, and the

bugs and worms will already have had their fill before the debt is even

close to being due. Then your grand kids can pay for EVERYTHING, theirs and

ours.

That's the way bush lite and his herd of neo's pay for things. Let someone

else pay.

Did you realize that the deficit is really a federal tax raised without

Congressional approval? It's a tax in the worst sense of the word. A tax

is nothing more than revenue raised to pay for government programs. That's

exactly what bush lite is doing. He and the neo's are raising money to pay

for programs to support his goals. Then we have to pay the money back, with

backbreaking interest. At least with a congressional mandated tax there is

no interest to pay since a tax is paid directly to the government. So every

time you hear about deficit spending remember the terms principal +

interest, because that what deficit spending is.

--

meport

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:RL4qj.66763$Mu4.51826@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

> February 5, 2008

> Congress Looks Askance at Bush's Budget

> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

> Filed at 4:02 p.m. ET

>

> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top administration officials were on Capitol Hill

> Tuesday defending President Bush's $3.1 trillion budget plan from attacks

> by Democrats that it adds almost $800 billion to U.S. debt and doesn't pay

> for the war in Iraq.

>

> Democrats on two Senate panels tossed brickbats at Bush's budget and some

> key Republicans criticized it as well as lawmakers made it plain that they

> would ignore the president's proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid

> spending.

>

> At the Senate Budget Committee, White House budget chief Jim Nussle put in

> a combative performance, returning criticism of Bush's budget with attacks

> on lawmakers for not fully funding his long-pending war request and

> challenging them to join Bush in curbing the rapid growth of benefit

> programs.

>

> Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., slammed the budget for piling

> almost $800 million in debt onto the government's books, both in bonds

> held by investors at home and abroad and IOUs in the Social Security trust

> funds.

>

> ''The debt has done nothing under this president's watch but skyrocket,''

> charged Conrad.

>

> ''Then let's open up mandatory spending,'' Nussle shot back, referring to

> the spiraling growth of benefit programs like Medicare.

>

> Top panel Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire again criticized the Bush

> blueprint for having ''some serious flaws from the standpoint of accuracy

> and even more serious flaws from the standpoint of policy.'' But he also

> attacked Democrats for assuming phony revenue boosts when passing a

> congressional budget plan last year.

>

> A few floors below, at the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over taxes

> and Medicare, the atmosphere was more sedate, but the Bush budget plan

> wasn't faring any better.

>

> ''A good budget must be realistic,'' Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said at a

> hearing featuring Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Baucus, Finance

> Committee chairman, said key aspects of the Bush budget -- proposed cuts

> in health programs, making Bush's tax cuts permanent and omitting war

> costs in predicting a budget surplus by 2012 -- failed that test.

>

> The top Republican on the panel, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, chided the

> administration for not considering the costs of adjusting the alternative

> minimum tax in future years and acknowledged that people's attention was

> already shifting to the next administration. ''The focus is not going to

> be on the president's budget. The focus is going to be on what the next

> president will do.''

>

> Paulson defended the first-ever $3 trillion federal budget proposal

> introduced Monday, saying its emphasis on a pro-growth tax system,

> entitlement reform and a balanced budget was in the best interest of the

> country. But his opening remarks centered on prodding the Senate to act

> quickly on an economic stimulus package aimed at keeping the country out

> of recession.

>

> Bush's budget for fiscal year 2009 beginning Oct. 1 proposes spending just

> below $3.1 trillion. Last year, he proposed $2.9 trillion for the current

> budget year, but the administration now estimates that spending in fiscal

> 2008 will also exceed $3 trillion once all the costs of the continuing war

> in Iraq are included.

>

> Excluding the war, Bush is proposing an 8 percent increase in the

> Pentagon's base budget, to $515.4 billion, next year. Overall defense

> spending would decline from $670.5 billion this year to $588.3 billion in

> Bush's 2009 budget. The request includes just $70 billion in initial war

> costs, a figure certain to be exceeded when Bush leaves office.

>

> Some of the spending increases would be offset by prescribing $196 billion

> in savings to Medicare and Medicaid programs over the next five years and

> reducing or eliminating 151 programs, saving $18 billion.

>

> ''The (Medicare) proposals are not realistic. We already have doctors who

> will not accept Medicare patients,'' said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.,

> normally a Bush ally.

>

> But the effort to slow spending in those programs also reflects Bush's

> determination to preserve his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts after he's gone. Many

> of those tax cuts expire in 2010, and the cost of writing them into

> permanent law would be $635 billion over five years.

>

> Democrats also said the White House's projection that the budget deficit

> will hit $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, just under the

> $413 billion record set four years ago, was overly optimistic, depending

> on rosy economic forecasts and understating war costs.

>

>

mordacpreventor@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Feb 5, 2:22 pm, "John and Joan" <jjme...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> Do you really care how deeply in debt we go?

>

> Since it's the Chinese who are financing the government's spending

> spree, you should care.

>

> Read this, it'll sober you up:

> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/01/business/fund.php

> http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/061204/4chinaexplainer.htm

>

>

> Then there's the effect the debt is having on the U.S. currency in the

> world market.

>

> Countries are beginning to stop accepting U.S. dollars as payment.

>

Me too...although, getting consulting clients to pay in Euros is a

huge pain in the ass... <grin>

Miles "Saving For A Rainy Day" Long

>

>> Don't you realize that the

>> actuaries have it all figured out? You'll be dead, gone, buried, and the

>> bugs and worms will already have had their fill before the debt is even

>> close to being due. Then your grand kids can pay for EVERYTHING, theirs and

>> ours.

>>

>> That's the way bush lite and his herd of neo's pay for things. Let someone

>> else pay.

>>

>> Did you realize that the deficit is really a federal tax raised without

>> Congressional approval? It's a tax in the worst sense of the word. A tax

>> is nothing more than revenue raised to pay for government programs. That's

>> exactly what bush lite is doing. He and the neo's are raising money to pay

>> for programs to support his goals. Then we have to pay the money back, with

>> backbreaking interest. At least with a congressional mandated tax there is

>> no interest to pay since a tax is paid directly to the government. So every

>> time you hear about deficit spending remember the terms principal +

>> interest, because that what deficit spending is.

>>

>> --

>> meport

>>

>> "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

>>

>> news:RL4qj.66763$Mu4.51826@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

>>

>>

>>

>>> February 5, 2008

>>> Congress Looks Askance at Bush's Budget

>>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

>>> Filed at 4:02 p.m. ET

>>> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top administration officials were on Capitol Hill

>>> Tuesday defending President Bush's $3.1 trillion budget plan from attacks

>>> by Democrats that it adds almost $800 billion to U.S. debt and doesn't pay

>>> for the war in Iraq.

>>> Democrats on two Senate panels tossed brickbats at Bush's budget and some

>>> key Republicans criticized it as well as lawmakers made it plain that they

>>> would ignore the president's proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid

>>> spending.

>>> At the Senate Budget Committee, White House budget chief Jim Nussle put in

>>> a combative performance, returning criticism of Bush's budget with attacks

>>> on lawmakers for not fully funding his long-pending war request and

>>> challenging them to join Bush in curbing the rapid growth of benefit

>>> programs.

>>> Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., slammed the budget for piling

>>> almost $800 million in debt onto the government's books, both in bonds

>>> held by investors at home and abroad and IOUs in the Social Security trust

>>> funds.

>>> ''The debt has done nothing under this president's watch but skyrocket,''

>>> charged Conrad.

>>> ''Then let's open up mandatory spending,'' Nussle shot back, referring to

>>> the spiraling growth of benefit programs like Medicare.

>>> Top panel Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire again criticized the Bush

>>> blueprint for having ''some serious flaws from the standpoint of accuracy

>>> and even more serious flaws from the standpoint of policy.'' But he also

>>> attacked Democrats for assuming phony revenue boosts when passing a

>>> congressional budget plan last year.

>>> A few floors below, at the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over taxes

>>> and Medicare, the atmosphere was more sedate, but the Bush budget plan

>>> wasn't faring any better.

>>> ''A good budget must be realistic,'' Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said at a

>>> hearing featuring Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Baucus, Finance

>>> Committee chairman, said key aspects of the Bush budget -- proposed cuts

>>> in health programs, making Bush's tax cuts permanent and omitting war

>>> costs in predicting a budget surplus by 2012 -- failed that test.

>>> The top Republican on the panel, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, chided the

>>> administration for not considering the costs of adjusting the alternative

>>> minimum tax in future years and acknowledged that people's attention was

>>> already shifting to the next administration. ''The focus is not going to

>>> be on the president's budget. The focus is going to be on what the next

>>> president will do.''

>>> Paulson defended the first-ever $3 trillion federal budget proposal

>>> introduced Monday, saying its emphasis on a pro-growth tax system,

>>> entitlement reform and a balanced budget was in the best interest of the

>>> country. But his opening remarks centered on prodding the Senate to act

>>> quickly on an economic stimulus package aimed at keeping the country out

>>> of recession.

>>> Bush's budget for fiscal year 2009 beginning Oct. 1 proposes spending just

>>> below $3.1 trillion. Last year, he proposed $2.9 trillion for the current

>>> budget year, but the administration now estimates that spending in fiscal

>>> 2008 will also exceed $3 trillion once all the costs of the continuing war

>>> in Iraq are included.

>>> Excluding the war, Bush is proposing an 8 percent increase in the

>>> Pentagon's base budget, to $515.4 billion, next year. Overall defense

>>> spending would decline from $670.5 billion this year to $588.3 billion in

>>> Bush's 2009 budget. The request includes just $70 billion in initial war

>>> costs, a figure certain to be exceeded when Bush leaves office.

>>> Some of the spending increases would be offset by prescribing $196 billion

>>> in savings to Medicare and Medicaid programs over the next five years and

>>> reducing or eliminating 151 programs, saving $18 billion.

>>> ''The (Medicare) proposals are not realistic. We already have doctors who

>>> will not accept Medicare patients,'' said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.,

>>> normally a Bush ally.

>>> But the effort to slow spending in those programs also reflects Bush's

>>> determination to preserve his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts after he's gone. Many

>>> of those tax cuts expire in 2010, and the cost of writing them into

>>> permanent law would be $635 billion over five years.

>>> Democrats also said the White House's projection that the budget deficit

>>> will hit $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, just under the

>>> $413 billion record set four years ago, was overly optimistic, depending

>>> on rosy economic forecasts and understating war costs.- Hide quoted text -

>> - Show quoted text -

>

You are a total ignorant fool.

The newest funding of our debt is in the form of ten year bonds.

Money borrowed today has to be paid back or refinanced in ten years.

Take youyr choice.

Meanwhile the interest on the debt gnaws away at our ability to do what is

needed for our country.

Republican prolificate spending and unnecessary inevitably means higher

taxes...another drag on America.

Thank you for nothing, Republicans

"John and Joan" <jjme170@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:13qhodh7es15d68@corp.supernews.com...

> Do you really care how deeply in debt we go? Don't you realize that the

> actuaries have it all figured out? You'll be dead, gone, buried, and the

> bugs and worms will already have had their fill before the debt is even

> close to being due. Then your grand kids can pay for EVERYTHING, theirs

> and ours.

>

> That's the way bush lite and his herd of neo's pay for things. Let

> someone else pay.

>

> Did you realize that the deficit is really a federal tax raised without

> Congressional approval? It's a tax in the worst sense of the word. A tax

> is nothing more than revenue raised to pay for government programs.

> That's exactly what bush lite is doing. He and the neo's are raising

> money to pay for programs to support his goals. Then we have to pay the

> money back, with backbreaking interest. At least with a congressional

> mandated tax there is no interest to pay since a tax is paid directly to

> the government. So every time you hear about deficit spending remember

> the terms principal + interest, because that what deficit spending is.

>

> --

> meport

>

> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

> news:RL4qj.66763$Mu4.51826@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

>> February 5, 2008

>> Congress Looks Askance at Bush's Budget

>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

>> Filed at 4:02 p.m. ET

>>

>> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top administration officials were on Capitol Hill

>> Tuesday defending President Bush's $3.1 trillion budget plan from attacks

>> by Democrats that it adds almost $800 billion to U.S. debt and doesn't

>> pay for the war in Iraq.

>>

>> Democrats on two Senate panels tossed brickbats at Bush's budget and some

>> key Republicans criticized it as well as lawmakers made it plain that

>> they would ignore the president's proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid

>> spending.

>>

>> At the Senate Budget Committee, White House budget chief Jim Nussle put

>> in a combative performance, returning criticism of Bush's budget with

>> attacks on lawmakers for not fully funding his long-pending war request

>> and challenging them to join Bush in curbing the rapid growth of benefit

>> programs.

>>

>> Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., slammed the budget for piling

>> almost $800 million in debt onto the government's books, both in bonds

>> held by investors at home and abroad and IOUs in the Social Security

>> trust funds.

>>

>> ''The debt has done nothing under this president's watch but skyrocket,''

>> charged Conrad.

>>

>> ''Then let's open up mandatory spending,'' Nussle shot back, referring to

>> the spiraling growth of benefit programs like Medicare.

>>

>> Top panel Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire again criticized the

>> Bush blueprint for having ''some serious flaws from the standpoint of

>> accuracy and even more serious flaws from the standpoint of policy.'' But

>> he also attacked Democrats for assuming phony revenue boosts when passing

>> a congressional budget plan last year.

>>

>> A few floors below, at the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over

>> taxes and Medicare, the atmosphere was more sedate, but the Bush budget

>> plan wasn't faring any better.

>>

>> ''A good budget must be realistic,'' Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said at a

>> hearing featuring Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Baucus, Finance

>> Committee chairman, said key aspects of the Bush budget -- proposed cuts

>> in health programs, making Bush's tax cuts permanent and omitting war

>> costs in predicting a budget surplus by 2012 -- failed that test.

>>

>> The top Republican on the panel, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, chided

>> the administration for not considering the costs of adjusting the

>> alternative minimum tax in future years and acknowledged that people's

>> attention was already shifting to the next administration. ''The focus is

>> not going to be on the president's budget. The focus is going to be on

>> what the next president will do.''

>>

>> Paulson defended the first-ever $3 trillion federal budget proposal

>> introduced Monday, saying its emphasis on a pro-growth tax system,

>> entitlement reform and a balanced budget was in the best interest of the

>> country. But his opening remarks centered on prodding the Senate to act

>> quickly on an economic stimulus package aimed at keeping the country out

>> of recession.

>>

>> Bush's budget for fiscal year 2009 beginning Oct. 1 proposes spending

>> just below $3.1 trillion. Last year, he proposed $2.9 trillion for the

>> current budget year, but the administration now estimates that spending

>> in fiscal 2008 will also exceed $3 trillion once all the costs of the

>> continuing war in Iraq are included.

>>

>> Excluding the war, Bush is proposing an 8 percent increase in the

>> Pentagon's base budget, to $515.4 billion, next year. Overall defense

>> spending would decline from $670.5 billion this year to $588.3 billion in

>> Bush's 2009 budget. The request includes just $70 billion in initial war

>> costs, a figure certain to be exceeded when Bush leaves office.

>>

>> Some of the spending increases would be offset by prescribing $196

>> billion in savings to Medicare and Medicaid programs over the next five

>> years and reducing or eliminating 151 programs, saving $18 billion.

>>

>> ''The (Medicare) proposals are not realistic. We already have doctors who

>> will not accept Medicare patients,'' said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.,

>> normally a Bush ally.

>>

>> But the effort to slow spending in those programs also reflects Bush's

>> determination to preserve his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts after he's gone.

>> Many of those tax cuts expire in 2010, and the cost of writing them into

>> permanent law would be $635 billion over five years.

>>

>> Democrats also said the White House's projection that the budget deficit

>> will hit $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, just under the

>> $413 billion record set four years ago, was overly optimistic, depending

>> on rosy economic forecasts and understating war costs.

>>

>>

>

>

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:459qj.61133$k27.29506@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

> You are a total ignorant fool.

>

> The newest funding of our debt is in the form of ten year bonds.

>

> Money borrowed today has to be paid back or refinanced in ten years.

>

> Take youyr choice.

>

> Meanwhile the interest on the debt gnaws away at our ability to do what is

> needed for our country.

>

> Republican prolificate spending and unnecessary inevitably means higher

> taxes...another drag on America.

>

> Thank you for nothing, Republicans

>

>

>

>

can we lynch the confederate traitors yet ?

Sid9 wrote:

> February 5, 2008

> Congress Looks Askance at Bush's Budget

> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

> Filed at 4:02 p.m. ET

>

> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top administration officials were on Capitol Hill

> Tuesday defending President Bush's $3.1 trillion budget plan from

> attacks by Democrats that it adds almost $800 billion to U.S. debt

> and doesn't pay for the war in Iraq.

What? How can that be? "Daniel" assured me that the deficit was shrinking. Is "Daniel" wrong again? lol