US promises draconian budget to reduce deficit

[bemildred]

United States is determined to reduce its budget deficit said Treasury Secretary John Snow who admitted that the current misbalance is “too significant”.

“We Americans know our budget deficit is too significant and it must be reduced. President Bush is determined to reduce the magnitude of the deficit”, added Mr. Snow during an interview with the British press.

Mr. Snow is currently in Europe suggesting a stronger growth from the European Union is needed to keep the world economy rolling. Mr. Snow has been also criticized for the huge US budget deficits that have sent the US dollar tumbling against the Euro and the pound sterling.

MercoPress

[Dem Agog]

1. ...

"And in other news, anyone want to watch elephants fly out of my butt?" :rolleyes:

[denverbill]

5. How wrong you are.

It's sad but true. Republicans are going to be 'forced' to cut budgets. Everything from welfare, to AFDC, to food stamps. Don't worry though. There is no danger that the enormous tax cuts passed over the last few years are in any danger of being undone. After all, tax cuts increase govt revenue, which is why we had a surplus before the tax cuts and a deficit afterwards. However, even with the increased revenue caused by the tax cuts, it still isn't enough to cover luxury items like after school programs for at risk kids and day care for mothers forced off welfare.

It's unfortunate, but we just can't afford these luxuries anymore with this enormous budget deficit.

[liberal N proud]

12. Everything but the war on Iraq

[74dodgedart]

40. I believe there will be some form of New Taxes before 2008

It may be disguised as "closing loopholes" or new fees. etc..But reality is going to set in sooner or later..

The budget should be "the" Democratic issue for 2006

[Hog lover]

52. National Sales Tax

nice and regressive

[Just Me]

63. Yup. Let's install the most obvious UNFAIR TAXATION SYSTEM,...

,...since,...ummmm,...1775.

Yeah,...let's not just go back 50 or 100 years,...let's progressively regress way back before that!!!

Damn.

[Ilsa]

74. Yep, and probably on everything , like groceries.

I bet they exempt luxury items.

[aquart]

2. Oh, gosh. Wonder what's gonna go?

Could it be ALL SOCIAL PROGRAMS?

[Turbineguy]

4. eliminate all "social programs"

except of course prison construction.

Sound Bush policies for a happier America!

[Roland99]

31. Wonder how NCLB will continue to survive?

And what about the states who will likely receive less funding for a failed mandate?

[Deja Q]

56. And how will the masses think?

To abruptly end all programs? I'd love to see the repukes try.

You can bet your sweet bippy that many of the masses might just realize that freedom means they have nothing left to lose. :scared:

[The Zanti Regent]

75. But they are brainwashed by Jesus TV

My whole family believes this rapture shit. They really believe Jesus is coming next week to get them...

[alfredo]

15. Their agenda has long been killing all New Deal Reforms.

Their hatred for everything FDR is still simmering on the imperial right.

[aquart]

45. Well, they're only gonna have to put 'em all back.

When people are so desperate and distraught that they no longer care what happens, you know, the suicide bomber mentality? Nasty nasty things start to happen. They can shoot us, intern us, but the young and agile will be slipping across the borders to Canada and Mexico. The boats will go the other way TO Cuba.

The rest of the world is going forward while the US is racing backward. Bush MAY be able to defend us from an invasion.....unless it's a country we buy spare parts for our weapons from. But can he defend us from a coalition of former allies?

George is stupid enough to use nukes. He has put into place a pre-emptive national security doctrine. Using HIS doctrine, what are OTHER nations empowered to do????

[jwirr]

57. My guess is that you are right!

Then the rich and especially bushie will learn exactly who the safety net was supposed to protect. I hate to see it but if you are starving survival requires that you act. If they kill my severely ill daughter I will never forgive them and I will have "nothing left to lose" as the song goes. When a great many people get to that point then it is dangerous for everyone around. Just look at the French Revolution when the said "Let them eat cake."

[Mojambo]

3. This is just what they wanted

Swell the deficit with military spending and demolish New Deal programs by insisting we must cut the deficit.

We are SO going to be a third world nation soon.

[ladjf]

19. That has been the exact modus operandi of the fascists

for the past couple of hundred years. Colonize, exploit and then abandon after the resources are gone. The difference now is that
WE, the USA have become a literal colony of the global corporations.WE
the people of the USA have literally become their slaves. When our resources have been squandered to add to the billions of the likes of the Walton family, they will abandon us to have our bones picked by any other country that might decide that it would be fun to pick on
a former power, reduced to 3rd world status. What a disgrace! And to make matters worse, we the people actually assisted them in their
disingenuous coup d'etat. They staged a coup right here in America.
First 2000 and then finished it off in 2004.

[American Tragedy]

30. Reminds me of the brilliant Chance for Peace speech by Eisenhower

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

-Dwight Eisenhower, American Society of Newspaper Editors, 1953

[Laelth]

60. Great quote!

Thanks for posting that.

:toast:

-Laelth

[Just Me]

67. I mourn the loss of the courage necessary to believe,...

,...in the value of humanity.

The "weak" are in charge,...and they always destroy,...because they have nothing to offer with respect to inspiring the human spirit.

Oh, well. I wish so much unnecesary pain could be avoided,...but *sigh*,...here we go, again.

[kwolf68]

81. Ike

Sounds like a raging Leftist doesn't he? And he got elected...TWICE.

[American Tragedy]

82. Can you imagine a Republican OR Democrat giving a speech like that today?

Or later, giving a speech directly alluding to the looming risk of corporate power and war profiteering? Seriously, I think most would consider it political suicide, possibly even traitorous. Yet Ike said this to the public in the midst of the Cold War.

[Ima]

93. Funny about that

Both Dems and repugs wanted him to run for their party.

[cassiepriam]

6. How about kicking Halliburton off the public dole?

Could save a bundle getting Cheney's pals off of corporate welfare.

[frustrated_lefty]

7. Krugman has been warning about this

for years. The rat bastards are dead set on starving the beast.

[pmbryant]

10. They are feeding the beast, not starving it

And they have become addicted.

The beast being the military-industrial complex, as Eisenhower called it.

--Peter

[Strelnikov_]

32. Ph. 1, Deficit, Check; Start Ph. 2, Starve The Beast

the beast being everything except Defense and corporate welfare.

[ladjf]

20. The US is now a colony. WE the PEOPLE of the United State

of America are now their SLAVES and we helped them take over. You can't get dumber than that.

[flying_blind]

69. LINK - Tax cuts and low wage conservatives - THE BIG LIE

It is not that the professionals refuse to consider supply-side ideas; rather, they have looked at them and found them wanting. A conspicuous example came earlier this year when the Congressional Budget Office tried to evaluate the growth effects of the Bush administration's proposed tax cuts. The budget office's new head, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, is a conservative economist who was handpicked for his job by the administration. But his conclusion was that unless the revenue losses from the proposed tax cuts were offset by spending cuts, the resulting deficits would be a drag on growth, quite likely to outweigh any supply-side effects.

But if the professionals regard the supply-siders with disdain, who employs these people? The answer is that since the 1970's almost all of the prominent supply-siders have been aides to conservative politicians, writers at conservative publications like National Review, fellows at conservative policy centers like Heritage or economists at private companies with strong Republican connections. Loosely speaking, that is, supply-siders work for the vast right-wing conspiracy. What gives supply-side economics influence is its connection with a powerful network of institutions that want to shrink the government and see tax cuts as a way to achieve that goal.

Supply-side economics is a feel-good cover story for a political movement with a much harder-nosed agenda.

This isn't just speculation. Irving Kristol, in his role as co-editor of The Public Interest, was arguably the single most important proponent of supply-side economics. But years later, he suggested that he himself wasn't all that persuaded by the doctrine: ''I was not certain of its economic merits but quickly saw its political possibilities.'' Writing in 1995, he explained that his real aim was to shrink the government and that tax cuts were a means to that end: ''The task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority -- so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.''

Much Much More:

http://www.faireconomy.org/econ/taxes/KrugmanTaxCutCon.html

[flying_blind]

70. -----------------------------> DO THE MATH

It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09 percent in Democratic years, 2.75 percent in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44 percent on average under Republican presidents and 5.33 percent under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 19.58 percent), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76 for the Democrats; 14.97 for the Republicans).

What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81 percent on average, compared with 4.85 percent). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans as under Democrats (2.74 percent versus 1.21 percent). Republicans won by a nose on government revenue (i.e., taxes), taking 18.12 percent of GDP compared with 18.39 percent. That, of course, is why they lost on the size of the deficit. Personal income per capita was also a bit higher in Republican years ($16,061) than in Democratic ones ($15,565). But that is because more of the Republican years came later, when the country was more prosperous already.

There will be many objections to all this, some of them valid. For example, a president can't fairly be held responsible for the economy from the day he takes office. So let's give them all a year. That is, let's allocate each year of an administration to the party that controlled the White House the year before. Guess what. The numbers change, but the bottom-line tally is exactly the same: higher growth, lower unemployment, lower government spending, lower inflation and so on under the Democrats. Lower taxes under the Republicans.

But maybe we are taking too long a view. The Republican Party considers itself born again in 1981, when Ronald Reagan became president. That's when Republicans got serious about cutting taxes, reducing the size of government and making the country prosperous. Allegedly. But doing all the same calculations for the years 1982 through 2002, and giving each president's policies a year to take effect, changes only one result: The Democrats pull ahead of the Republicans on per capita personal income.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29205-2004Jul30.html

[VegasWolf]

8. About the only thing we can splurge on are to keep the tax cuts

for the uber-wealthy.

[74dodgedart]

9. They spent 4 years telling us that record spending and record deficits

weren't a problem..Now (after the election), they admit it is a problem..

[Coyul]

11. This is the fastest way to destroy all social programs....

...and make no mistake, that is what they are planning. Bankrupt us on war and make the old, the students and the poor pay for it.

[natrat]

13. wow add to this the hyperinflation we know is coming

and you have starving people rioting,,,,lovely

[spinbaby]

18. How do we know it's coming?

We didn't have hyperinflation over the Reagan deficits.

[aneerkoinos]

44. Hyperinflation is likely

When the foregnurs stop funding US war debt, so to avoid default, Fed is going to buy debt directly. That means printing press and hyperinflation.

Reagan deficits were peanuts compared to current ones and the debt has been cumulating, during Reagan times US was still big manufacturing power and there was no euro to compete with dollar. Those are the major differences.

[alfredo]

16. force a crisis, then exploit it. That is their Mideast policy.

[T Bone]

48. Force a crisis, then exploit it with their own draconian 'solutions'

That is their policy for EVERYTHING. Too bad America did not wake up to their game, but the propaganda has just been so comforting and full of values. Doncha know?

[alfredo]

Maybe we are getting what we deserve

Bush is a mirror image of America. We are that fucked up.

[Old and In the Way]

14. One good outcome.

Perhaps now, many who think that the government is in the welfare business will get to experience directly what these cuts mean. Education to schools, infrastructure maintainence, and all kinds of programs that we all benefit from directly or indirectly will be cut.

Costs will passed to the State/Local level and we can start fighting amongst ourselves for survival.

I don't think many of the "less government" advocates are really going to like the trip back to the "good old days".

[saigon68]

17. I guess we won't save the spotted owl after all

I'll bet they hire a few more cops to beat up the Black Man though

[Strawman]

21. After all it's OUR, err uh I mean YOUR money

Translation: "We Republican CEO's can boost our pay 419 times more than we increase yours (which is actually a decrease in real dollars) in the "free market", and now you can't expect to recoup any of that ridiculously unequal distribution of wealth in pregressive income taxes because of the deficit we created. PS..I bought a nice big yacht from the tax cuts that diverted all that money you had been paying into the Social Security Trust fund since 1983. Now we're going to have to reduce those benefits too"

Grover Norquist is drawing the bath right now....

[gulfcoastliberal]

22. Time to "starve the beast"

I'm sure the repugs are salivating over which program to slah and burn first. They have at least 2 years to destroy whatever they desire.

[jwirr]

62. Most of these cuts will come

through regulation changes and the only people who will know about it is the people who are cut. In example, the administration will change a small item in the food stamp program by interpretation without the knowledge or consent of the congress and another 1000 people are thrown off assistance. Likewise they will cut items that medicaid or medicare will no longer pay for (maybe insulin) and the only people who miss it will be diabetics. In college loans they will decide your loans and grants by using a general figure for housing costs rather than what you actually pay. Another 1000 students will not get to go to college. An application for disability will have a new definition of disability and you will not qualify. The age for social security will rise. Nursing homes will and are already regulated to provide care to only certain kinds of needs. Only occasionally will they publically end a program because of the obvious uproar this would result in. We are in for many of these back door changes that will most certainly end these programs.

[cyr330]

23. Y ou know what cracks me up?

All these so-called conservatives who always bitch, piss and moan about big government. . . . They certainly scream bloody murder when their roads, bridges, and other infrastructure are all fucked up. Forget about public transportation; they normally don't use THAT, but fuck up their highways where they cruise through in their behemoth- like SUVs and they'll scream for federal funding.

[young_at_heart]

24. The police forces all over will be cut

Ditto for fire departments, libraries, schools, etc. etc.

[74dodgedart]

42. Will they cut they Iraqi police force ?

[young_at_heart]

79. The Iraqi force will get bigger

Billions of (our tax) dollars are going to Iraq.

[damntexdem]

25. Can't take any of those tax breaks back from the rich.

We'll just have to screw the poor and the middle class.

[natrat]

77. *ush's new tax plan removes tax on investments/interest

so we end up with tax on workers supporting the government

[Q3JR4]

26. Well,

this is what (many would have you believe) a majority of Americans voted for.

My father will get his social security cut so it's goint to hit very close to home. What can I do, though, he voted for Bush in the last election.

:shrug:

[sinkingfeeling]

27. You know this is evil, but I said it to one of my co-workers the day

after the election...I don't want to hear a word from anyone who voted for asshole! If your husband is shipped to Iraq for a couple of years...too bad; if your kids are drafted to fight the endless war...too bad; if your grandkids can't breathe because of asthma...too bad; your wife miscarrys because of mercury in the tuna...too bad; if your parents go into bankruptcy...too bad; grandparents eating dog food...too bad; lose your job to outsourcing...too bad. Just shut up. You asked for it and you got it!!

[llmart]

46. I've adopted that mantra myself.....

and so should every Democrat. I actually heard a woman call into Washington Journal on C-Span this morning who identified herself as a Republican and then went on to bitch and moan about how they shouldn't privatize social security. I was yelling at the TV - WTF!!! It's your friggen' pResident who wants to do that. But they show their true colors when they do this because when one of his inane policies hits them too close to home, then they get up-in-arms. I swear, Repugs are the most hypocritical, self-centered people I know.

[Polly_Sorbate_60]

71. This morning on my local public radio affiliate

a woman called in to a show bemoaning Bush's choice of Condi as the new SOS...she was almost crying she thought it was such a terrible choice! Most people who call in are left-leaning, so I assumed she didn't vote for Bush. WRONG! She said, "Because I'm pro-life, I voted for Bush. Oh, but THIS! This just has me in fits! I can't believe he chose this horrible woman who talked him into the war...yadda bladda bing."

Too bad, so sad.

[Chimpanzee]

90. "Because I'm pro-life, I voted for Bush"

Need I comment... I think NOT! :eyes:

[recoveringrepublican]

88. I'm sad to say that I feel the same way

I just don't know how I'm going to feel compassion for the shit that is going to go down. When I see those I know who voted for Bush, lose their jobs, health insurance, homes, lives because they were drafted, it's just going to be too hard not to say "too fucking bad...I fucking warned you....You chose to be greedy (most of them live beyond their means, even making as much as they do, 1 small problem will fuck them over completely financially)....deal with it, don't expect help from me,I already tried by voting for Kerry"

[Yavin4]

28. Less Govt Spending Means Goodbye To The Few Remaining

Middle Class paying jobs. Remember, govt (in particular the federal government) is the largest employer of Middle Class levels jobs in America today.

Cut out the federal level jobs and you'll kill this economy.

[The Night Owl]

29. I see Grover's bathtub is full of water now. (NT)

[Strelnikov_]

33. The Problem Is, If We Eliminate All Of The Federal Government

except Medicare, Social Security, Defense and debt service we would still be about $200 B short of balancing the budget.

Pretty sad, isn't it.

(I am using the actual deficit, not the published deficit that takes the yearly surplus from the SS trust fund).

[SOS]

50. Exactly

The way the gov. presents it's budget, you can clearly see that 75% is spent on four things:
the War Dept., Social Security, Medicare, interest on debt.
So if you eliminated everything else (close the White House!) you'd still be short.

[nolabels]

34. Now that the curtains have been drawn

They are going to have a rough going at much of anything. We will get to watch one of greatest unravellings of all times. Buy some popcorn

Not flippant, just have learned about of too many of these insane things that never got down to working to know. It will never be possible for success on the road they are traveling

[Zorra]

35. Republican logic: Invading Syria will cut the deficit, as will continuing

the conflict and occupation of Iraq.

How will this cut the deficit?

Why, the same way that tax cuts for the rich cut the deficit, silly.

Don't you understand how republican economic theory and practice works?

It's apparently totally logical to republicans: Spend more, borrow more, and take in less and you will cut the deficit.

This is the essence of good old republican fiscal conservatism.

Sheesh, you mean you still don't get it?

What are you, a Democrat or something?

[jwirr]

64. You just helped me "get it"

Spend more, borrow more, go bankrupt, less debt. Now I got it!

[eyepaddle]

73. Wow,

that prety much sums it up doesn't it? There wasn't anything in your post that I wasn't aware of, but you say it so well. Ir'd be hysterical if it wasn't so true.

[74dodgedart]

36. Does this mean we aren't going to Mars ?

[Strelnikov_]

61. Sorry Son, Not This Year. Maybe We Can Talk About It Next Election Cycle

[Barkley]

37. He's saying this to keep China and Japan buying our debt!

If the dollar keeps falling with no end in sight the Chinese and Japanese who hold about $1.7 trillion of our debt will stop buying up treasury bonds and perhaps sell their existing U.S. bonds.

This would force the U.S. to increase the interest rates on the bonds
to attract buyers. Higher interest rates would devistate the housing sector.

We're spending $4 billion per month in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran is next. Bush thinks that we're going to grow out of this deficit but even if the economy recovers, the tax revenues will not increase enough since the rate has been cut in 2002 and 2003.

[74dodgedart]

38. The Red states get the most Federal dollars..

[jwirr]

66. And red states

are more addicted to the "pull yourself up by the bootstrap" ideals. We in the blue states are more likely to ban together to help each other in this coming crisis than they are. Many of our states are already working on alternative energy sources etc. We need to keep building our local communities into self sufficient units as much as we can without forgetting the needy around us. God help us.

[BlueManDude]

39. They create defecits intentionally

then cut the stuff that helps low and middle-income citizens. stuff that conservatives never liked anyway.

[74dodgedart]

41. The budget should be THE Democratic issue for 2006

Hold the Cons feet to the fire.. The DNC should make this the issue in every election.

[aneerkoinos]

43. DAM EUROS!

YOU TOO GOTTA INFLATE THEM BUBBLES, SO THE AIR WILL STAY! BLOW HARDER AND HARDER SO NOBODY WILL SEE THEY ARE LEAKING ALLREADY!

[Gin]

47. Bush said on TV....when asked how he was going to reduce the deficit...

"the only things NOT on the table are defense and Homeland security."

[SOS]

51. There's no waste

at the War Department! Can't cut a penny there.
:eyes:

[htuttle]

49. IMF AUSTERITY MEASURES, HERE WE COME!!

Just so that everyone knows what we're probably in for, time to refresh your knowledge on what our government has been putting the rest of the world through.

The Globalizer Who Came In From The Cold
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=78&row=1

(snip)
At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, ‘The IMF riot.’

The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, (the IMF) takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You’d almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.

(snip...go read the whole thing...it's good!)

I'd estimate the United States is just past the end of Step Two, starting Step Three. Welcome to the 'Ownership Society', aka. The New Feudalism.

[Barrett808]

59. Yes. Step 1: Devalue currency. Check.

Step 2: Lower export controls.
Step 3: Remove all subsidies for energy and food.
Step 4: IMF riot.

[Logansquare]

53. I have to ask an honest question: What are they trying to do?

I know they're trying to "Starve the beast," i.e. end the social spending and "entitlements" initiated from the Depression up through the Great Society, but what do they expect will happen after they succeed? Do they know what they're doing to the American dream, or are they absolute dumbfucks who are using Ayn Rand books to form economic policy?

[Strelnikov_]

58. Same Thing Krugman, Pete Peterson, Lou Dobbs, Along With

at least 55 Mill. of your countrymen wonder.

I have heard Krugman say that he thinks they don't think that far ahead and that they figure it will work out because it always does.

In other words, faith based socio-economic policy.

[jwirr]

68. Faith-Based Economic

policy if truely Biblical would chide the billionaire for storing grain in his barn and would remember the story of Abraham and Lazareth. It sometimes seems to me that they are just trying to see how many points they can rack up like in a video game. I don't think they even think beyond the games action.

[natrat]

65. like the article says "they dont care if people live or die"

part of it might be swooping in and buying assets pennies on the dollar

[Gloria]

54. If the Dems don't grab this whole mess by the throat, they are

useless. This should be the call to arms...and they need to detail how this has all been deliberate...screw up our fiscal health and then screw up the people of this country...

[Deja Q]

55. Well, let's see:

Foreign countries make our goods and run our IT. The trend continues, even as more offshoring companies freely advertise on NPR. :puke:

Middle class is diminished.

European Union probably isn't happy with the US for any number of reasons at this point. Why should they bother to help? Their own Euro means more to them than their dollar. (it's not ours when we're scalp deep in debt!) Besides, with the quagmire in Iraq with signs * wants to pull out so he can decimate a few more countries that don't like him and happen to have oil...

I'm surprised the economy has remained as stable, given the mountain of issues that threaten to crush our economy like a car would an aluminum beer can.

When it happens it happens. Anyone want to form a commune?

[Polly_Sorbate_60]

72. Because my job is fairly dependent on discretionary social spending,

I'm closely watching the potential cutbacks in Ed, DOJ, HHS, etc. My gut tells me to expect the worst. BUT...here's the thing. A heckuva lotta "Faith Based Organizations" are REALLY eager to get their hands on some of the grant moola that's been floating around lately. They're not going to be too keen on the admin or their Repub reps if their favorite lil' social programs are slashed. (They were clamoring for more grant opps open to FBOs pre-election.) So I guess I can look forward to writing some abstinence-only grants for high school kids in the future. :puke: :grr:

Last year some group got a pile of cash to implement a program "promoting marriage." What a fucking joke. What an insult to single people and people who can't even find someone decent to go to a movie with. What a complete waste of our tax dollars.

[buckeyes3645]

76. Slave state

The neo cons are trying to break us financially/ and or mentally. Then they will have their absolute rule.

[natrat]

80. they are doing a good job w/ the mental part so far

[Banazir]

91. But not before they have to deal with a lot of pissed off people.

When you cut enough programs that enough people are aware they're going to die, they're not going to all sit there and die without making a fuss first. Most of the disabled DUers I've met on this board, for example, are some combination of furious, terrified, and desperate. We know we're among the "expendable" class as far as the government's concerned, particularly those of us who can't get a job. If you're trying to rule a bunch of people, letting things get to that point is a bad move: People won't just shut up and die when you've already taken everything else away from them. Many of us are doing everything in our power to head these situations off, but if our social services end up being cut, as is already happening in Tennessee, we're not going to take it quietly.

[oblivious]

78. Language complaint - "reduce the magnitude of the deficit"

"Magnitude", besides being unnecessary, sounds ridiculous.

[bemildred]

83. "our budget deficit is too significant and it must be reduced"

Almost sounds like chemistry.

[oblivious]

85. Must've been taking language lessons from his boss.

[6th Borough]

84. I figured this was Bush* policy all along.

Massive debt...reduction in so-called entitlement programs...etc.

If you can't get the public to agree with you on policy...well hell, bleed the funding dry.

There is no way they (the administration) would actually come out and make eliminating The New Deal and The Great Leap Forward a point of discussion; more...shall we say "subtle" (and nefarious) means must be employed.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

86. {sticking toe in Grover's bathtub}

[MissB]

89. It is getting pretty deep, isn't it?

I'm wondering if it full enough yet.

[Supersedeas]

87. "too significant" - sloganeering or non-sensical Bushspeak

[fshrink]

92. Draconian for who? Let's take a guess.

I hope for the imbeciles who voted for that, and there probably will be a bunch. All community-based, public initiatives will certainly suffer.

[Gay Green]

94. All community-based, public initiatives will certainly suffer.

In that case, I hope the "faith based" initiatives are the first to go!