Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Compassionate Conservatism? Not in the current budget.
Quote | Reply
NY Times Editorial today by Bob Herbert: The Era of Explotation

Congress is in recess and the press has gone berserk over the Terri Schiavo case. So very little attention is being paid to pending budget proposals that are scandalously unfair, but that pretty accurately reflect the kind of country the U.S. has become.

President Bush believes in an "ownership" society, which means that except for the wealthy, you're on your own. The president's budget would cut funding for Medicaid, food stamps, education, transportation, health care for veterans, law enforcement, medical research and safety inspections for food and drugs. And, of course, it contains big new tax cuts for the wealthy.

These are the new American priorities. Republicans will tell you they were ratified in the last presidential election. We may be locked in a long and costly war, and federal deficits may be spiraling toward the moon, but the era of shared sacrifices is over. This is the era of entrenched exploitation. All sacrifices will be made by working people and the poor, and the vast bulk of the benefits will accrue to the rich.

F.D.R. would have stared slack-jawed at this madness. Even his grand Social Security edifice is under assault by the vandals of the G.O.P.

While the press and the public are distracted by one sensational news story after another - Terri Schiavo, Michael Jackson, steroids in baseball, etc. - the president and his party have continued their extraordinary campaign to undermine the programs that were designed to fend off destitution and provide a reasonable foundation of economic security for those not blessed with great wealth.

President Bush has proposed more than $200 billion worth of cuts in domestic discretionary programs over the next five years, and cuts of $26 billion in entitlement programs. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which analyzed the president's proposal, said:

"Figures in the budget show that child-care assistance would be ended for 300,000 low-income children by 2009. The food stamp cut would terminate food stamp aid for approximately 300,000 low-income people, most of whom are low-income working families with children. Reduced Medicaid funding most certainly would cause many states to cut their Medicaid programs, increasing the ranks of the uninsured."

Education funding would be cut beginning next year, and the cuts would grow larger in succeeding years. Food assistance for pregnant women, infants and children would be cut. Funding for H.I.V. and AIDS treatment would be cut by more than half a billion dollars over five years. Support for environmental protection programs would be sharply curtailed. And so on.

Conservatives insist the cuts are necessary to get the roaring federal budget deficit under control. But they have trouble keeping a straight face when they tell that story. Laden with tax cuts, the president's proposal will result in an increase, not a decrease, in the deficit. Shared sacrifice is anathema to the big-money crowd.

The House has passed a budget that is similar to the president's, except it contains even deeper cuts in programs that affect the poor. In the Senate, a handful of Republicans balked at the cuts proposed for Medicaid. Casting their votes with the Democrats, they were able to eliminate the cuts from the Senate budget proposal. The Senate also added $5.4 billion in education funding for 2006.

All the budgets contain more than $100 billion in tax cuts over the next five years, which makes a mockery of the G.O.P.'s budget-balancing rhetoric. When Congress returns from its Easter recess, the Republican leadership will try to reconcile the differences in the various proposals. Whatever happens will be bad news for ordinary Americans. Big cuts are coming.

The advances in areas like education, antipoverty programs, health services, environmental protection and food safety were achieved after struggles that, in some cases, took many decades. To slide backward now (hurting millions of people in the process) because of a desire to siphon funds from those programs and hand them over as tax cuts to the wealthiest members of our society, is obscene.

This is not a huge national story. It's just the way things are. It was Herbert Hoover who said: "You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too damn greedy."



Ok board conservatives, please explain to me how these cuts are going to make America a better place for all.

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers
Quote Reply
Re: Compassionate Conservatism? Not in the current budget. [mopdahl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are they cuts or just are they just lowering the projected rate of growth? What is the annual budgets of each program that will be cut or have the projected rate of growth lowered? Is there anywhere these programs can trim some fat? How useful are the programs that will be cut or have the projected rate of growth lowered? Are the programs well ran? How do they help? Does everyone of them help?

Lots of questions but of course facts and figures get in the way of good spin and righteous indignation.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Compassionate Conservatism? Not in the current budget. [mopdahl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Horrors. A politician has proposed "cutting" spending. Of course, spending will continue to go up, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Start impeachment now.
Quote Reply
Re: Compassionate Conservatism? Not in the current budget. [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Come on Art, you can do better than that. I want to know how you can justify the tax cuts for the weathy (which we don't need as argued to death in another thread) while more & more people join the ranks of the impoverished? You can't honestly believe the administrations domestic agenda is working can you?

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers
Quote Reply
Re: Compassionate Conservatism? Not in the current budget. [mopdahl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't know how to answer such a broad question. Overall, the record is mixed. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that the federal government is spending too much money. It would be pretty hard to find a serious "cut" that I wouldn't support.

The reality is that there are no cuts anywhere. Spending everywhere is up and will continue to go up.

I don't know of any new tax cuts. I do know of efforts to continue existing ones. If the failure to increase taxes constitute a tax cut, how can the failure to increase spending as much as projected constitute a cut? I suppose, in Washington, it can.

Washington simply does not have a revenue problem. Revenue as a percent of GDP is well within historic norms. Washington has only a spending problem.
Quote Reply
Re: Compassionate Conservatism? Not in the current budget. [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ok, what do you think we should spend less $$ on?

Education?

How about cutting out the subsidies for farmers? I'd be all for that now that 95% of the nations produce is coming from large corporations & not the family farm.

Defense? Kill that stupid missle defense system & we'll save a few billion on a program that has yet to work, and probably won't (and it won't matter if it does or doesn't as we're all fucked at that point anyway).

Social services? Ok, so we need to put more people on the street w/o any sort of health insurance/Medicaide?

We are heading toward another Hoover-like state. Good thing us wealthy just got another 10% cut in our taxes.

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers
Quote Reply
Re: Compassionate Conservatism? Not in the current budget. [mopdahl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The answer to all your questions is yes. Those are real good places to spend less money. I kind of like the missile defense program, but if you want to shut down the F-22 fighter instead, go for it.
Quote Reply
Re: Compassionate Conservatism? Not in the current budget. [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Art,

Please explain what you think we should cut out of education? Ditto Medicade? Ditto social services?

What do you think we should pay taxes for?

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers
Quote Reply
Re: Compassionate Conservatism? Not in the current budget. [mopdahl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We should get rid of pretty much the whole federal Department of Education. There are probably a few good programs like some of the scholarship programs, maybe the school lunch program and perhaps some nationwide studies and the like that should stay, but the rest should go.

Same thing for the Department of Agriculture. They do some good work and studies, but all of the cash payments and quotas should go.

Medicaid and Medicare are much tougher. Get rid of drug benefit for starters. The entire healthcare system needs to be revamped to inject market incentives. Frankly, I just don't know how to get there from here. I wish I had a better insight to offer.

I am not sure what you mean by social services precisely. In the wake of the very successful welfare reform laws, we are probably doing fairly well in these areas. Again though, I am not well enough informed to offer much insight.

We are basically being bankrupted by middle class welfare programs. Just three programs Medicare, Medicaid and SS will take as large a portion of the GDP in the future as the entire federal government does now, absent policy changes. This can not be allowed to happen. It would destroy our economy.

Pardon me if I don't get upset at some proposed, alleged budget cuts. I doubt there actually are any.
Quote Reply