Chicagoland Sportbike Forums banner
1 - 20 of 77 Posts

·
Old Squid on a Blade
Joined
·
9,388 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Got to love it, he will approve $13.2 BILLION for shit we don't need (Especially the F-35), but won't spend money on health and education. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: What a tool. :twofinger I think the just announced 21% rate increase coming up in January in the BCBS plan for my office is getting to me. It is getting to the point where I can't afford to give my employees the coverage I believe they deserve.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/13/bush-vetoes-dems-health-and-education-bill/

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush on Tuesday signed a big increase in the Pentagon's non-war budget, and vetoed a spending measure for health and education programs prized by congressional Democrats.

The president's action was announced on Air Force One as Bush flew to Indiana for a speech expected to criticize the Democratic-led Congress on its budget priorities.

More than any other spending bill, the $606 billion education and health measure defines the differences between Bush and majority Democrats. The House fell three votes short of winning a veto-proof margin as it sent the measure to Bush.

Since winning re-election, Bush has sought to cut the labor, health and education measure below the prior year level. But lawmakers have rejected the cuts. The budget that Bush presented in February sought almost $4 billion in cuts to this year's bill.

Democrats responded by adding $10 billion to Bush's request for the 2008 bill.

The $471 billion defense budget gives the Pentagon a 9 percent, $40 billion budget increase.


Much of the increase in the defense bill is devoted to procuring new and expensive weapons systems, including $6.3 billion for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, $2.8 billion for the Navy's DD(X) destroyer and $3.1 billion for the new Virginia-class attack submarine.

Huge procurement costs are driving the Pentagon budget ever upward. Once war costs are added in, the total defense budget will be significantly higher than during the typical Cold War year, even after adjusting for inflation.

Flame on all you Bush lovers. ;)
 

·
The Victim Newbie
Joined
·
7,384 Posts
Got to love it, he will approve $13.2 BILLION for shit we don't need (Especially the F-35), but won't spend money on health and education. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: What a tool. :twofinger I think the just announced 21% rate increase coming up in January in the BCBS plan for my office is getting to me. It is getting to the point where I can't afford to give my employees the coverage I believe they deserve.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/13/bush-vetoes-dems-health-and-education-bill/

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush on Tuesday signed a big increase in the Pentagon's non-war budget, and vetoed a spending measure for health and education programs prized by congressional Democrats.

The president's action was announced on Air Force One as Bush flew to Indiana for a speech expected to criticize the Democratic-led Congress on its budget priorities.

More than any other spending bill, the $606 billion education and health measure defines the differences between Bush and majority Democrats. The House fell three votes short of winning a veto-proof margin as it sent the measure to Bush.

Since winning re-election, Bush has sought to cut the labor, health and education measure below the prior year level. But lawmakers have rejected the cuts. The budget that Bush presented in February sought almost $4 billion in cuts to this year's bill.

Democrats responded by adding $10 billion to Bush's request for the 2008 bill.

The $471 billion defense budget gives the Pentagon a 9 percent, $40 billion budget increase.


Much of the increase in the defense bill is devoted to procuring new and expensive weapons systems, including $6.3 billion for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, $2.8 billion for the Navy's DD(X) destroyer and $3.1 billion for the new Virginia-class attack submarine.

Huge procurement costs are driving the Pentagon budget ever upward. Once war costs are added in, the total defense budget will be significantly higher than during the typical Cold War year, even after adjusting for inflation.

Flame on all you Bush lovers. ;)
modern politics

further deviding the haves from the have nots.
 

·
Old Squid on a Blade
Joined
·
9,388 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
What are you going to do when the Taliban is knocking on your front door?
GWB FTMFW!!!!
I'll give them my BCBS bill and watch them walk away laughing. :twofinger
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,186 Posts
This bill was an expensive Democrat ploy to put one of their own in the whitehouse. If Bush approved it he would have had to deal with the reprecussions of being way over budget and forcing tax increases. If he didn't approve he the Democrats can slam him for being insensitive to children, health care and education. Good for him for being fiscally responsible and throwing the veto.:cheers:
 

·
Go Speed! Go!
Joined
·
398 Posts
"Huge procurement costs are driving the Pentagon budget ever upward. Once war costs are added in, the total defense budget will be significantly higher than during the typical Cold War year, even after adjusting for inflation."

That's just plain BS, don't believe everything you read, Vietnam alone was enough to blow that comparison away. In fact, our GDP has grown so much that despite spending a larger amount as a percentage of GPD spending on defence has fallen.

Quick question for all you ignorant Bush haters: How much has our GDP increased since Bush took office? Anyone anyone... Beuhler? 18.6%! Hmm, he must not know anything about the economy if we've had an 18% GDP increase under his tenure (and created 8 million jobs). Anyone of you even know what our GDP is? Or what it's growth was last quarter? I bet half of you think we're in a recession. Just keep on listing to AP...
 

·
Go Speed! Go!
Joined
·
398 Posts
Good answer Arch, but not good because you're right, but because you're wrong. Very wrong. 3.5 Trillion too low for 2006.
 

·
Your friendly Crazy Canuk
Joined
·
12,731 Posts
:sucks: :blahblah: :gives

There's a reason it's called politics:rolleyes If you think one political party is better than another Bruce....I suggest you stop putting Ketel One in the morning OJ, quit with the Sapphire for lunch and stop the :puff_pass: on the way home from work. The only questions you should be asking...did I make more money this year? Did whatever bozo in charge let me keep more of it?
 

·
Go Speed! Go!
Joined
·
398 Posts
:sucks: :blahblah: :gives
The only questions you should be asking...did I make more money this year? Did whatever bozo in charge let me keep more of it?
Acutally, I believe those are the only questions that really matter to us on an individual level. Right on.
 

·
Irony helps us play!
Joined
·
29,500 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,186 Posts

·
Irony helps us play!
Joined
·
29,500 Posts
Now put together a regression model including the data set of economic growth on a lagging basis to war spending and you'll see why I'm not concerned with a growing deficit during war time.;)
The last time I heard people talk about huge amounts of debt not being a bad thing, they very quickly filed for Chapter 11 protection. It's just money...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,186 Posts
The last time I heard people talk about huge amounts of debt not being a bad thing, they very quickly filed for Chapter 11 protection. It's just money...

This is the government not individuals;)
 

·
Old Squid on a Blade
Joined
·
9,388 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
No more Sapphire for this boy. It hurts the bones. I only pull it off the shelf for a crazy Canadian friend when he visits. Those guys... ;) And the 70s are long gone.

Yes, I personally made a crapload more this year if buying 3 new cars and giving away one in the last 8 months didn't give it away. The Bozo had nothing to do with it. From a very real standpoint he already hurt a significant part of my business. I worked smart, worked my ass off and made some big commissions. I've left a good chunk in the corp to make sure my girls are going to be taken care of next year. The Bozo is going to cost me much more of it in the long haul.

For those still in denial of the costs, the following is hot off CNN. I worked the math on my part before. This is the cost on average:

"The committee calculated that the average cost of both wars for a family of four would be $20,900 from 2002 to 2008. The cost for a family of four would go up to $46,400 from 2002 to 2017, the committee said."

Since I'm in the top 5-10% of income, guess what my personal share is? From memory, since the top 10% pay about 70% of taxes I'm ballparking it at $324,800+ and I was upset when I thought it was about 1/2 of that... That is a lot of money. So much for having a good year. All because Bush is a liar.

Say what you want about political parties being the same. There is little doubt in my mind that we wouldn't be in this position if it wasn't for the manipulations of Bush and Cheny. There never were WMD, there never was Taliban, there never was a credible threat from Iraq. We should have stopped in Afganistan. I couldn't give a rat's ass that Saddam was an evil dictator. There have been plenty before and are plenty floating around now. That in not justification for invasion. Bush and his administration has made the problem much worse. Plus he cost me and everyone in this country a crapload of moola anyway you cut it. Oh, lets not forget the great personal cost to the family's of our Vets even if they make it home uninjured.



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The total economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated at $1.6 trillion by 2009, a congressional committee said in a report released Tuesday.


A soldier with the 101st Airborne Division guards an oil refinery near Baiji, Iraq.

1 of 2 That is nearly double the $804 billion in direct war costs that the White House already has requested so far from Congress, the Democratically-controlled Joint Economic Committee said.

The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated.

The higher total economic impact comes from, among other things, the cost of borrowing money to pay for the war, the lost productivity due to that borrowing, higher oil prices, and the cost of taking care of wounded veterans, the committee said.

The committee calculated that the average cost of both wars for a family of four would be $20,900 from 2002 to 2008. The cost for a family of four would go up to $46,400 from 2002 to 2017, the committee said.

"For every dollar we spend directly in Iraq, we're going to pay another dollar for the indirect, but immediate, costs of the war," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said. "We of the baby boom generation and our children and grandchildren will be paying for this war for a very long time to come."

"We cannot afford this war -- $12 billion dollars a month?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said. "We just can't. We can't continue." Watch Sen. Reid say 'we can't buy victory' »

Schumer said finances will become an significant factor in the ongoing debate regarding the course of the conflicts.

Don't Miss
Joint Ecocomic Committee report on total cost of wars (PDF)
Poll: Opposition to war at all-time high
CNN Spotlight: Iraq: Transition of Power
"The cost of the war is becoming the $800-billion-dollar gorilla in the room when it comes to opposition in the war," he said. "It is becoming the first thing that people mention after the loss of life when they're opposed to this war."

"And the people who mention it, many of them, are not people who were against the war in the past," Schumer added.

Republicans, who said they were not included in the preparation of the report, said the country has little choice but continue to bear the costs of the war.

"What's their alternative?" Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, asked of the Democrats. "Should we not fund veterans? Should we not send MRAPs [armored personal carriers] to Iraq? Not fund the GI Bill?

"And how much will oil cost if the progress in Iraq is reversed and al Qaeda shuts down the oil deliveries? What will that do to the markets?" Stewart asked.

Stewart called the report "a Democrat report, prepared by the head of the Democrat campaign committee" -- a reference to Schumer, the head of the party's effort to add Senate seats in 2008.


White House spokeswoman Dana Perino accused the Democrats of releasing the report for partisan reasons and to "muddy the waters" after a series of positive reports from Iraq -- including a reduction in violence, increased economic capacity of the country, and signs of continued political reconciliation "from the bottom up."

"It's positive and we hope it is a trend that will take hold," Perino
 
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
Top