Trillion with a T

Bush Sends Congress $2.7 Trillion Budget, Conservatives Still Don't Support Free Markets

WASHINGTON Feb 6, 2006 (AP)— President Bush is sending Congress a $2.7 trillion spending plan that provides big increases for the military and homeland security but squeezes many other government programs in an effort to get soaring deficits under control.

I think I get how this happens. Here's my reconstruction:

Bush: "Our military needs more money."

Toadies: "Yes, sir. For a stronger America."

Bush: "Also, our finances are hurting. Let's cut some programs."

Toadies: "Yes, sir."

[five minutes later]

Bush: "Now that we freed up some money by cutting those programs, let's pump it into the military. For a stronger America."

Toadies: "Good idea, sir."

[press conference the next day]

Bush: "The good thing about my plan is its fiscal responsibility. I've cut everything I could. Also, the other good thing is how it supports the military. I've given them all I could. Also, I increased some other stuff too, you know, for a better America."

I'm still shocked to see the Republican Party talk about fiscal responsibility and free markets with a straight face.

Share this

So, when there's a

So, when there's a Republican White House and Democratic Congress, we blame the Democrats for fiscal irresponsibility. When it's a Democratic White House and Republican Congress, we blame... Democrats. When it's a Republican White House and a Republican Congress and we're running the biggest deficits in history, we make the excuse that Democrats would have been worse.

This unholy alliance between (some) libs and Republicans needs to end. Theocracy, corporate welfare, and printing presses are not really preferable to individual welfare and higher taxes. Both are wealth transfers from me to others but at least with one I'm less likely to go to jail for smoking pot or being nekkid on TV and I get money stolen from me overtly by the IRS rather than covertly by the Fed.

Sean, I (hope/believe) Josh

Sean,

I (hope/believe) Josh was kidding...

They're both bad, and

They're both bad, and pretending that either party is better in power is the ostrich approach. The best of the bad choices available in the near term is split government, with neither party able to muster control of both the legislature and executive. Preferably legislature is split between both parties as well. Government gridlock is a hell of a lot better than government without gridlock.

Budget defecits are a

Budget defecits are a problem, but that's not directly related to free markets. You could eliminate every regulatory body tomorrow and still run a defecit.

Kerry would have been

Kerry would have been worse!!!!!!!!!

- Josh

I thought my long history of

I thought my long history of commenting here, combined with the number of exclamation points I used, would have tipped people off that I was joking.

- Josh

Josh, I was with you. Matt,

Josh, I was with you.

Matt, it's not 1-1, I know.

When you're famous like me,

When you're famous like me, you can't take time to remember each of the little people's positions to know when they're joking! :cool: :grin:

Maybe I should just call that a preemptive rant :furious:

(Sorry Josh :dunce:)

Nothing substantive has been

Nothing substantive has been cut that I've heard of. The Medicare 'cuts' in the news today actually represent large increases in spending. Did I miss something?

Its all newspeak my friend "

Its all newspeak my friend " spending cut" no longer means "spending cut" in the old sense of the bygone, freewheeling days when people were straightforward about things. Now its actually the word for slight slowdown in the amount of money thrown at whatever is being "cut"

Wait, how would it not have

Wait, how would it not have been better w/ Kerry? The govt. spends less when the pres and Congress are from different parties, so they fight more and cooperate on pork less. So it would obviously have been better w/ Kerry.

You guys are getting a bit carried away with the bipartisan hating and forgetting that the mix of masters matters...

Patri, That seems to be the

Patri,

That seems to be the case in theory (at least from 94 to 96) but the counterexample is the Reagan presidency when the parties logrolled on spending- billions for defense AND many pennies for tribute pork. Absent some sort of internal norm against the spending, I'm not sure that gridlock does actually limit spending.

I saw a townhall.com article

I saw a townhall.com article on this a while back. Basically one of the columnists had gone back to the data since WWII or thereabouts, and analyzed the following:

Repub congress/Repub pres
Repub congress/Dem pres
Dem congress/Repub pres
Dem congress/Dem pres

The best of the four (for fiscal matters) was a Republican Congress with a Democrat President. Basically since Congress controls the purse strings, it's best to have the party who professes to care about fiscal discipline in power. But if it is a Republican President as well, they just push through everything they can. If a Democrat is in the oval office, the Congress has every goal to not let him spend a dime, and so won't create new programs that he can take all the credit for.

I’m still shocked to see

I’m still shocked to see the Republican Party talk about fiscal responsibility and free markets with a straight face.

Hopefully you'll get over it soon. How long have you been shocked?

I have a dream... A dream

I have a dream... A dream that one day we will all realize that both parties suck, and that neither is working for our best interests. A grand illusion it is, who will replace what is lost from our disgruntled party(s)? I ask you, Do we really need these clowns imposing or disposing anything on/for us, the people? Is it possible we have come to justify them too much? I believe we could be doing better, without these sellout dictators (any of them).

ok, so historically

ok, so historically speaking, the economy, for whatever reason, always does better with a Democrat in the White House.
Also, historically speaking, the economy did better under Clinton than EVER BEFORE in the history of this nation.
The question is: Why the hell do we elect Republicans at all?????????????