Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bush's budget for 2008 virtually freezes all domestic spending at current levels. Too little too late but its a start. It of course will get no further than congress. Why? Could it be no room for pork and earmark programs that do nothing but waste? What should be added is a reduction in foreign aid by at least 50%. How can we afford foreign aid when we can't balance our budget? More importantly how can we afford foreign aid when we need to freeze domestic spending at 2007 levels?
I believe its a good start. If we were to balance our personal budgets we would first look at how to cut back on discretionary spending within our households.
Official: Bush's 2009 budget to be tight - Yahoo! News (broken link)
I still think its irresponsible what Bush did, not because I think we need more spending but because I think there needs to be less spending. Its like saying you make $1k a month and spending $3k a month... freezing is not solving or helping the problem when you are still spending TOO much. If you want to freeze it, then freeze it at a level where we are not overspending. Maybe, god forbid, freeze it at a level where we are actually profiting and pay off the deficit in the meantime while we try to find solutions to cut more spending. That is being responsible... freezing the spending as it is now is still being irresponsible when you still worsen the problem...
Bush's budget for 2008 virtually freezes all domestic spending at current levels. Too little too late but its a start. It of course will get no further than congress. Why? Could it be no room for pork and earmark programs that do nothing but waste? What should be added is a reduction in foreign aid by at least 50%. How can we afford foreign aid when we can't balance our budget? More importantly how can we afford foreign aid when we need to freeze domestic spending at 2007 levels?
I believe its a good start. If we were to balance our personal budgets we would first look at how to cut back on discretionary spending within our households.
Official: Bush's 2009 budget to be tight - Yahoo! News (broken link)
Still a liberal spending budget, not even close to "conservative" levels.
I still think its irresponsible what Bush did, not because I think we need more spending but because I think there needs to be less spending. Its like saying you make $1k a month and spending $3k a month... freezing is not solving or helping the problem when you are still spending TOO much. If you want to freeze it, then freeze it at a level where we are not overspending. Maybe, god forbid, freeze it at a level where we are actually profiting and pay off the deficit in the meantime while we try to find solutions to cut more spending. That is being responsible... freezing the spending as it is now is still being irresponsible when you still worsen the problem...
I agree, but you need to start somewhere. A freeze is a start. A better start would be to ban pork. End all foreign aid until we have a surplus. End all foreign aid until our borders are secure. End all foreign aid until we have met the needs of our own population.
They should also freeze the salaries of all elected fed officials.
Redesign the Department of energy so that it actually serves a purpose and can make a positive impact.
The Fed Gov should not be in the business of building walking trails and community parks. That should be at the state and local levels.
Foreign aid must top the list of worst spent us tax dollars. Right there with pork. Pork to improve the taste of a certain strain of grapes? Building sailing schools etc. The list is endless of what we waste money on.
A step in the right direction. Perfect? No, but compared to everything else coming out of Washington these days, from both parties, this is as close as we've gotten to fiscal responsibility in a long time.
A step in the right direction. Perfect? No, but compared to everything else coming out of Washington these days, from both parties, this is as close as we've gotten to fiscal responsibility in a long time.
To bad that it will never be passed. Sigh in disgust...
Its much easier to play the blame game. Not to mention all the lost kickbacks from loosing the pork options.
Getting financial advise from Bush seems paradoxal, as when he took office the national debt was $5.2 Trillion, now the debt limit has been raised again to $9 trillion.
Getting financial advise from Bush seems paradoxal, as when he took office the national debt was $5.2 Trillion, now the debt limit has been raised again to $9 trillion.
Considering that $2.57 trillion of that is ONLY interest on that $5.2 Trillion previously due, then he wasnt a spend crazy president like most would believe. This doesnt change the fact that he in no way shape or form has run on a conservative budgets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
