|
Bush seeks record $245bn for war
|
View this Thread in Original format
| star-traveller |
| quote: | Bush seeks record $245bn for war
George Bush, the US president, is to ask congress for $245bn to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - while proposing curbs in spending on the US health care system.
Bush, speaking in his weekly radio address on Saturday, said Monday's budget proposal would emphasise restraint on domestic spending and make military funding the top priority.
Bush is to request $100bn for the rest of the current fiscal year and $145bn for next year, an administration official told Reuters news agency.
His budget also proposes squeezing about $70bn in savings from the US Medicare and Medicaid health programmes over the next five years.
Record spending
But the New York Times said budget documents show the actual figure is more than $100bn.
The budget proposal totals $170bn for the current fiscal year, including $70bn that congress has already approved, making it the highest spending level to date for the military campaigns.
Under the proposal, wealthier senior citizens would have to pay more for prescription drugs and the services of doctors under the Medicare system, The Washington Post and New York Times reported, citing a senior administration official and budget documents.
Bush's proposed cuts in Medicare and Medicaid far surpass what he or any other US president have sought before, the New York Times reports.
The Washington Post said the president would seek an increase of more than 10 per cent for Pentagon spending, increasing its budget to $481bn.
Non-military areas would receive a one per cent increase in spending for the fiscal year in 2008, an administration official told Reuters.
The sum amounts to a decrease in many US domestic programmes after accounting for inflation, which is running at about 2.5 per cent.
'Fiscally reckless'
Bush said: "Controlling spending also requires us to address the unsustainable growth of entitlement programmes such as social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
"Spending for these programmes is growing faster than inflation, faster than our economy, and faster than our ability to pay for it."
The proposal will be the first budget that Bush has submitted to a congress controlled by rival Democrats.
Many Democrats have called Bush "fiscally reckless" and say his huge domestic tax cuts are unaffordable and favour the wealthy. |
Bush seeks record $245bn for war
Is this guy completely out of his monkey-sized mind? |
|
|
| star-traveller |
| quote: | U.S. Budget to Reach $2.9 Trillion in 2008
The 2008 budget draft that U.S. President George Bush will submit to the Congress amounts to $2.9 trillion and specifies the increase in war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the budget draft spells out the decline in deficit from year to year to generate the surplus by 2012.
In the United States, the budget deficit reached the absolute record of $413 billion in 2004. To reduce and then to eliminate it, Bush suggests cutting down funding 141 government’s programs to save $12 billion in five years. Only the programs of national security and fighting world terrorism won’t suffer reductions.
Bush also intends to request the Congress to sanction additional appropriation of $100 billion for military operations in Iraq and for fighting world terrorism in 2007.
The White House suggests spending $145 billion for Iraqi campaign and for fighting extremists in 2008. But the amount will go down to $50 billion in 2009. Pentagon budget is expected to reach $481 billion in 2008, AP reported. |
U.S. Budget to Reach $2.9 Trillion in 2008
Where can I find a list of those government's programs? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | | [i] Bush suggests cutting down funding 141 government’s programs to save $12 billion in five years. Only the programs of national security and fighting world terrorism won’t suffer reductions. |
12 BILLION in "cuts" OVER FIVE YEARS!??? That's it???
Pardon my language but HOLLLLLLLYYYYYYY !!!!
Next year's budget will be 3 TRILLION F*CKING DOLLARS...and the lefties are worried about a lousy 12 billion in cuts over the next 5 years?? Are you kidding me?
We are spending *THREE THOUSAND BILLION DOLLARS* next year...and these "cuts" will only amount to 2.4 billion each year...beyond pathetic. |
|
|
| pmoisse |
With all these tax cuts, how does he plan on generating revenue for the country?
I thought that was business 101? Maybe that's why his business ventures didn't do so well.
Cutting social programs is a great way to win swing voters too. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
And someone feel free to correct me, but doesn't the Alternative Minimum Tax expire this year and kick back in?
I can see why Bush ran to the Democratic retreat over the weekend. How much more $ can we borrow from China, our Social Security and Medicare fund, and elsewhere to fund our war and other goodies?
I guess on the up-side, at least Bush is no longer hiding the costs of his war anymore from the budget. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
how can any americans not boil with anger at this outrageous personal obsession that will probably cost, according to the times of london, $750 billion dollars. granted this figure includes the afghanistan adventure and may not include future costs. it's just insane.
this man ought to be flayed alive and dunked in a vat of rubbing alcohol.
| quote: | | The proposed increase will take the total cost of Mr Bush’s wars since September 11, 2001, to almost $750 billion which — even when prices are adjusted for inflation — exceeds that spent by the US in Vietnam over a much longer period. Before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, officials promised that war costs would be limited to $100 billion. |
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle1329335.ece |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| Less government is always better |
|
|
| Lilith |
It almost seems to be a 'partisan shot' from someone who knows theyre damned and really doesnt give a damn who they take down with them and the consequences after. Sure, Bush will probably lose the next election but you've got to pity the fools that have to be picking up the pieces of Iraq (which will last at least 5 years of civil unrest), an international reputation akin to being a totalitarian regime hell bent on 'war', nation of paranoid inhabitants looking under ever rock for potential terrorists and then theres the debt...
Debt like that your great grandkids are going to be paying off for some time yet but somehow I've got a really good itch which makes me think the ensuing economics arent something I want anything to do with and quite glad I dont have shares in anything at the moment.
We live in 'interesting times' which isnt much fun and nor exciting as it sounds, hah damn I feel sorry for anyone who's going to be untangling that after he's gone. No matter what they do, it's repurcussions are going to be horrid.
edit- yes it was old news... ;) |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
Less government is always better |
The problem isn't more or less government, the problem is that we don't have a responsible government. The election last year was a referendum on wanting a more responsible government, not less or more government. The legislative branch is attempting to be more reponsible, but we still have quite an irreponsible and negligent executive branch that wants more and more power granted to it, but with the Democrats now in power, they know that they can longer have unlimited power. There is a need for fiscal reponsibility, and hopefully we can have some without either cutting funding for vital services..
Less government doesn't work, nor does more government...the best government is one that rules from the middle. We need government, the problem with the Bush/Former Republican government is that they at points were either too large (domestic spying, runaway spending) or too small (Katrina, funding for domestic programs/services). Realistically, libertarianism doesn't work in a country this size. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| Well, governments tend to be inefficient to begin with. I'd prefer to pay less for something incompetent than more. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
Well, governments tend to be inefficient to begin with. I'd prefer to pay less for something incompetent than more. |
True but paying less isn't neccessarily going to mean a more competent government. Just like boycotting a product doesn't neccessarily mean a change in the company. It's like a few people who don't pay taxes because they don't want to support the government, wont make as big of a difference as many people not doing that. It takes a large number of people to make a difference. But less government, is not what I see as the solution...rather a government that has greater fiscal responsibility and oversight...makes wiser decisions than this current government. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Bullets aren't free people.
We have to pay back the bank for all those WMDs that Saddam was hiding. After all we caught, tried and hanged him for those damned WMDs didn't we?
So we have to pay for war 'cause Virginia there is a war debt to be paid. |
|
|
|
|
