FOLLOWING A SURREAL timetable, the Senate and House are apt this week to approve budget resolutions that would lock in huge tax cuts without setting aside a penny for war in Iraq. Then the administration would unveil a "supplemental" spending request -- and demand that a check be cut immediately.
For the administration, this schedule carries two advantages. No war numbers are released to jeopardize the tax package; then, once war is underway, Congress dares not challenge a spending request. But why should Congress go along with such a charade? The administration scornfully dismisses questions about price -- "If you don't know if it's going to last six days, six weeks or six months, how in the world can you come up with a cost estimate?" Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asked last month -- but it is preparing an initial spending request that it will submit within days of first hostilities. Indeed, administration officials privately have briefed select lawmakers about the coming request for what is apt to be just the first installment of war funds.
Anyone else notice yet that House leadership is trying to fast-track a FY2004 budget that would include drastic cuts in funding for Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans programs to make room for Bush's dividend-tax elimination? Doesn't this sound a bit like Robin Hood in reverse? And this after Bush just promised to ADD funding to these programs in his State of the Union address.
And they want to do this during the first week of the war a) when everyone's distracted by the pretty bombs, and b) before Bush has to request his ~$80B supplemental appropriation to pay for his war, so they can claim "unforseen circumstances" when the record federal deficit of $304 billion deficit grows even fatter on added war debt?
What the fuck is wrong with you? You posted a correct, cogent, well argued, intelligent, and rational post in a thread about the Bush administration. What a freak!
In all seriousness, it's sad that your post will be lost on many of the readers here. Either that, or they'll retort by calling you an anti-American liberal, and not responding with any logic or numbers of their own.
It will be interesting to see how the bill is split this time in the Mid East. I wonder if they are going to try to make some of the other contries pick up some more of the slack. Keeping in mind that the economy is not so hot in the US atm, but also remembering that another war brought us out of the depression. Will be interesting to see the aftermath...
Old news. Duhbya has been doing his Sheriff of Nottingham impersonation since his days as governer of Texas. Is it any surprise he's doing it now?
Cutting social programs that the middle and lower class benefit from the most so that the richest 1% can get even larger tax breaks has been going on since that dipshit set foot in office.
Pherr the Dorf wrote:it was 4 words that killed his daddy in the election not 3.... It's the economy stupid
Exactly. It was the economy, and it will be the economy come the next election. The question is, will there be a Democrat as charismatic as Clinton to hammer that point home to the American people? I hope there will be, though the realist in me thinks America will be suckered into another 4 years of Bush-induced hell.
This shit definitely pisses me off. The national deficit doesn't worry me that much, and I've already accepted the fact that Medicare isn't gonna be there for me, but cutting vets' benefits is just fucking wrong.
I think we should be more worried about the "emergency tax reprimands" that will be issued once the plan to rebuild Iraq comes along. The money for war always exists, basicly...but just like when we rebuilt Kuwait, an added tax showed up for that expense. Get ready for another one.
Cutting vet's bonuses is especially sickening because we just have over 250,000 new veterans of Gulf War 2.0.
"Hey guys, welcome home! Thanks for protecting our country and taking time out of your life that you could have been going to school and furthering your education and preparing for retirement. Thanks a lot! However, we can't give you benefits for your service because of this damn deficit, but don't worry. Your country thanks you, and that's good enough for me." - President Bush in the near future.
Serving one tour in a war does not entitle you to life long health care. The only military people who should get life long benefits are those that were injured during a war (or peacetime) or those that put in 20 years in the armed services. People who went to Gulf War I and sat in a radio truck for a year and then got out of the military don't deserve it.
Now those people who were injured in any war or military duty should get the best fucking care that we can provide for the rest of their lives. I watched Born on the Fourth of July recently and the conditions they showed in that Veteran's hospital were really appalling. Sadly my wife is a nurse and she says that the Veteran Hospitals are still the worst place to work in the medical field.
It's not as if Bush would understand the perspective of a genuine war veteran, anyhow. During his year of service in the military, Dubya went AWOL for more than 4 months. Probably to snort lines, which was one of his favorite activities in college.
At least he served, unlike your hero Clinton, who dogded the draft while not inhaling at Oxford....
What's the difference? Either way, both of them found ways to weasel out of Nam. However, I'd be more inclined to believe that Clinton's dodging was due to personal beliefs that the war was wrong rather than believe the same from Bush.
One didn't feel like preventing communism was worth his risking his life while the other was just plain chicken-shit and had daddy to hold his hand and keep him away from the action. I think this one is a no brainer in terms of who's stature is the lesser of the two in this regard.
