Money For War and Not The Poor
When Kanye West said on national television that George Bush doesn't care about black people, on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. A lot of folks nodded their heads and waved their hands like they just didn't care and said "oh yeah!" and West isn't the only one. Here in California Mike Reiner aka Meathead on "All in the family" is proposing that folks who make over $500,000.00 a year pay for pre-school for the states illegals errr!!! poor. These type of actions and statements imply that this administration and in particular this president only cares about three people...He, Himself and His-self. Implications ranging for lack of funds for education, defense and everyone's favorite...welfare.
It's the battlecry, wait a minute, I can't use battle and democrat in the same sentence, let alone subject. Okay, let me try this, its the bitchin' of the democratic party, that the guys on the other side of the aisle, or if your Hillary Clinton, the plantation owners who don't want nobody to have nothin." They blame the republicans for always cutting programs here and there, the best example is blaming Reagan's republican administration of cutting mental health programs, causing a majority of this country's mentally ill patients to be on the streets. It's curious to me that no one ever brings up the ACLU and their lawsuit to stop mental institutions from giving these patients their meds. But if its bad, blame the republicans and in contrast, with exception of Bill Clinton, and trust me after you read the attached article, some democrats are going to say, you see, I told you Clinton was good as gold.
The article is from the April 3, 2006, USA Today, and it can be placed as a non-friendly to conservative newsreaders, but sometimes these papers slip and print something that makes people like Kanye West, look well, ill-informed. I'm pretty sure other editors on their way to work walked by a newsstand to see on the front page, "Government Spending Grows." I'm sure that some were ordering latte from one of the gazillion StarBucks, almost choked on the foam when they saw it. And I'm pretty sure our misinformed celebrities had someone read it to them, while they listened in disqust. What the USA Today did was say what all conservatives had been saying in debates and trying to correct, well the misinformed.
Government spending or big government kinda negates the statement by Rev. Lowry at Coretta Scott King's Funeral service, when he said, "we got money for war but not for the poor." The USA Today, kinda made him and everyone else who has either said or wrote it on cardboard look like liars. Because according to this newspaper, and pursuant to all other arguements that the news presented by Fox or written in conservative newspapers, the USA Today backs up the claim that this administration has spent more on programs than the Lyndon "War on Poverty" Johnson and the last time this kind of spending went on, was on another democratic favorite Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A republican president, with democratic tendancies to spend, spend and spend has been doing so, with tax cuts, three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo), with unemployment down to 4.8 to 4.9%, Hurricanes and 9/11! and yet he is the most criticized president since Richard Nixon and hell all Nixon did was sign into law another democratic favorite program...affirmative action.
So now what left wing liberals? what do you say, here it is from one of your newsrags...trust me, this news doesn't sit well for republicans who feel that this administration has lost its freakin' mind in regard to spending and damn sure doesn't fit well for democrats who now have to say something different in regard to this administration in its cutting of programs...oh!!! there wasn't a program this administration didn't touch...which continues to make Kerry and Kennedy liars.
Article:
Growth in federal spending unchecked Updated 4/3/2006 7:51 AM
BUDGET CHANGES Average annual budget change as a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product during these administrations: Roosevelt 14.8% Truman -8.6% Eisenhower -1.3% Kennedy 0.2% Johnson 1% Nixon 1.6% Ford -1.4% Carter 1.8% Reagan -0.6% G. Bush 0.2% Clinton -1.8% G.W. Bush 2.4%
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAYWASHINGTON — Federal spending is outstripping economic growth at a rate unseen in more than half a century, provoking some conservatives to complain that government under Republican control has gotten too big.The federal government is currently spending 20.8 cents of every $1 the economy generates, up from 18.5 cents in 2001, White House budget documents show. That's the most rapid growth during one administration since Franklin Roosevelt.
RELATED: How federal spending has climbed since 2001
There are no signs that the trend is about to turn around. The House Budget Committee last week rejected a proposal that would require spending hikes to be offset by cuts in other spending or by tax increases.
This week, the House is scheduled to debate the $2.8 trillion budget for 2007, which projects an additional $3 trillion of debt in the next five years.
The Sept. 11 attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Gulf Coast hurricanes account for only part of the increased spending.
Other factors: the biggest military buildup in decades, domestic spending, and the rise of benefits for the elderly, poor and disabled.
"You take anything, and we've grown it big," says Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a leading critic of the spending spurt. "When you're in control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, there's just no stop on it. There's no brake."
Examples:
• Spending for President Bush's military buildup, which began before 9/11, has risen nearly 50% above inflation in five years.
• Medicare's new prescription-drug coverage is projected to cost an average of $80 billion a year over the next decade, adding nearly 20% to the health care program's annual price tag.
• Spending on social programs, from education to veterans health care, has risen faster than at any time since the 1960s.
"Budgeting is about making choices, and this period is one that shows a complete absence of that," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican who stepped down last year as director of the Congressional Budget Office.
The White House points to recent domestic cuts and the elimination of scores of small programs. It says Bush has led efforts to trim Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
"By far the bulk of new funding — 75% of it — has been to restore the hollowed-out military the president inherited, strengthen homeland defenses after 9/11, and fight the war on terror," says Scott Milburn, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget. "These are essential investments that were required ... to protect our nation."
The spending spike contrasts with the mid-1990s, when Republicans gained control of Congress and compromised with President Clinton on spending cuts that led to a $236 billion budget surplus in 2000.
"Republicans have gotten the sense that they're going to get elected by passing out money to people," says former Republican House Budget Committee chairman John Kasich.
It's the battlecry, wait a minute, I can't use battle and democrat in the same sentence, let alone subject. Okay, let me try this, its the bitchin' of the democratic party, that the guys on the other side of the aisle, or if your Hillary Clinton, the plantation owners who don't want nobody to have nothin." They blame the republicans for always cutting programs here and there, the best example is blaming Reagan's republican administration of cutting mental health programs, causing a majority of this country's mentally ill patients to be on the streets. It's curious to me that no one ever brings up the ACLU and their lawsuit to stop mental institutions from giving these patients their meds. But if its bad, blame the republicans and in contrast, with exception of Bill Clinton, and trust me after you read the attached article, some democrats are going to say, you see, I told you Clinton was good as gold.
The article is from the April 3, 2006, USA Today, and it can be placed as a non-friendly to conservative newsreaders, but sometimes these papers slip and print something that makes people like Kanye West, look well, ill-informed. I'm pretty sure other editors on their way to work walked by a newsstand to see on the front page, "Government Spending Grows." I'm sure that some were ordering latte from one of the gazillion StarBucks, almost choked on the foam when they saw it. And I'm pretty sure our misinformed celebrities had someone read it to them, while they listened in disqust. What the USA Today did was say what all conservatives had been saying in debates and trying to correct, well the misinformed.
Government spending or big government kinda negates the statement by Rev. Lowry at Coretta Scott King's Funeral service, when he said, "we got money for war but not for the poor." The USA Today, kinda made him and everyone else who has either said or wrote it on cardboard look like liars. Because according to this newspaper, and pursuant to all other arguements that the news presented by Fox or written in conservative newspapers, the USA Today backs up the claim that this administration has spent more on programs than the Lyndon "War on Poverty" Johnson and the last time this kind of spending went on, was on another democratic favorite Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A republican president, with democratic tendancies to spend, spend and spend has been doing so, with tax cuts, three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo), with unemployment down to 4.8 to 4.9%, Hurricanes and 9/11! and yet he is the most criticized president since Richard Nixon and hell all Nixon did was sign into law another democratic favorite program...affirmative action.
So now what left wing liberals? what do you say, here it is from one of your newsrags...trust me, this news doesn't sit well for republicans who feel that this administration has lost its freakin' mind in regard to spending and damn sure doesn't fit well for democrats who now have to say something different in regard to this administration in its cutting of programs...oh!!! there wasn't a program this administration didn't touch...which continues to make Kerry and Kennedy liars.
Article:
Growth in federal spending unchecked Updated 4/3/2006 7:51 AM
BUDGET CHANGES Average annual budget change as a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product during these administrations: Roosevelt 14.8% Truman -8.6% Eisenhower -1.3% Kennedy 0.2% Johnson 1% Nixon 1.6% Ford -1.4% Carter 1.8% Reagan -0.6% G. Bush 0.2% Clinton -1.8% G.W. Bush 2.4%
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAYWASHINGTON — Federal spending is outstripping economic growth at a rate unseen in more than half a century, provoking some conservatives to complain that government under Republican control has gotten too big.The federal government is currently spending 20.8 cents of every $1 the economy generates, up from 18.5 cents in 2001, White House budget documents show. That's the most rapid growth during one administration since Franklin Roosevelt.
RELATED: How federal spending has climbed since 2001
There are no signs that the trend is about to turn around. The House Budget Committee last week rejected a proposal that would require spending hikes to be offset by cuts in other spending or by tax increases.
This week, the House is scheduled to debate the $2.8 trillion budget for 2007, which projects an additional $3 trillion of debt in the next five years.
The Sept. 11 attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Gulf Coast hurricanes account for only part of the increased spending.
Other factors: the biggest military buildup in decades, domestic spending, and the rise of benefits for the elderly, poor and disabled.
"You take anything, and we've grown it big," says Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a leading critic of the spending spurt. "When you're in control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, there's just no stop on it. There's no brake."
Examples:
• Spending for President Bush's military buildup, which began before 9/11, has risen nearly 50% above inflation in five years.
• Medicare's new prescription-drug coverage is projected to cost an average of $80 billion a year over the next decade, adding nearly 20% to the health care program's annual price tag.
• Spending on social programs, from education to veterans health care, has risen faster than at any time since the 1960s.
"Budgeting is about making choices, and this period is one that shows a complete absence of that," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican who stepped down last year as director of the Congressional Budget Office.
The White House points to recent domestic cuts and the elimination of scores of small programs. It says Bush has led efforts to trim Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
"By far the bulk of new funding — 75% of it — has been to restore the hollowed-out military the president inherited, strengthen homeland defenses after 9/11, and fight the war on terror," says Scott Milburn, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget. "These are essential investments that were required ... to protect our nation."
The spending spike contrasts with the mid-1990s, when Republicans gained control of Congress and compromised with President Clinton on spending cuts that led to a $236 billion budget surplus in 2000.
"Republicans have gotten the sense that they're going to get elected by passing out money to people," says former Republican House Budget Committee chairman John Kasich.
posted by J.C. "Fanz23" Lewis, Jr | 4:36 PM
<< Home