Bush Approval Rating Up

[Brundlefly]

How many of those 57% approving Bush have family or friend in the military? How many those 57% make less than $100K per year?

[Dinner]

Bush ha s had moderate success mainly in the last election. Legislatively he got three major bills through 1) His education bill which is actually good but he only provided half the money he said he would and he's cutting education this year 2) His truly massive farms subsidy bill which was a blatant attempt to pork barrel he way to victory in the midwest (vote for me and I will give you money) 3) The medicare drug benifet which was actually a Democrat idea that Bush co-opted when it was obvious it was to popular to oppose (and he did oppose it for the first two years).

The Iraqi elections were good but they are hardly his to claim since Bush didn't want to hold elections for at least another year or two. The Department of Homeland security is looking more and more like a big mistake since it hasn't really improved security or interagency communication and instead simply put a massive new layer of bueacracy into the mix thus slowing things down further. Lastly, one must realize the serious damage down to our Civil Rights and the nation's image due to policies Cheny, Rumsfield, and Gonzales all told Bush were needed for security. The British remain just as big a target as we are but they haven't lost their civil liberties while keeping their country safe.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm happy that Bush is asking for modest cuts to the bloated federal deficit but I doubt they will ever happen. Bush and the Republicans in Congress gave away buckets of money to every special interest they could find in order to win last November's elections and now that Bush won and can't run again he feels safe enough to cut programs. Good, but the Republicans in Congress can and likely will run again thus they won't want to cut anything. Ergo Bush's request for spending cuts is an empty gesture because he knows they won't ever happen.

Yup, people want to cut the pork as long as it is not THEIR pork. People like thier goverment programs, but when it comes to paying fore them: BUT TEH REAGAN SAID TAXES ARE TEH EVIL!.

[mrmitchell]

Without a balanced budget amendment and (as of yet) no dire consequences from running deficits, members of congress are going to continue running on pork barrel politics. Simple as that. Deficit hawks basically cut their own throats if they can't provide for their district. If I had the U.S. treasurary as a credit card, I think it would probably tempt me too.

There's nothing wrong with pork. It puts often sorely needed money into local communities.

The only way you can really solve the budget shortfall is to put the axe on the big programs. Don't go for the planktons. Go for the huge, bloated whales. Like the Defense Department is getting a $100B budget increase over the next several years (up to $500B in 2010 or something like that), and the RIDICULOUS $121B top 1% tax cut.

You know why cutting pork won't cut it? This little baby here is from the Citizens Against Government Waste website:

For fiscal 2004, appropriators stuck 10,656 projects in the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 13 percent over last year’s total of 9,362. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased 28 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2004 was $22.9 billion

That actually sounds pretty good for the government. 10,656 useful projects for only $23B. But back to the main point, THE DEFICIT IS OVER $500B. Cutting all the pork in the world will not eliminate the deficit. We must aim for bigger things.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Bush ha s had moderate success mainly in the last election. Legislatively he got three major bills through 1) His education bill which is actually good but he only provided half the money he said he would and he's cutting education this year 2) His truly massive farms subsidy bill which was a blatant attempt to pork barrel he way to victory in the midwest (vote for me and I will give you money) 3) The medicare drug benifet which was actually a Democrat idea that Bush co-opted when it was obvious it was to popular to oppose (and he did oppose it for the first two years).

The Iraqi elections were good but they are hardly his to claim since Bush didn't want to hold elections for at least another year or two. The Department of Homeland security is looking more and more like a big mistake since it hasn't really improved security or interagency communication and instead simply put a massive new layer of bueacracy into the mix thus slowing things down further. Lastly, one must realize the serious damage down to our Civil Rights and the nation's image due to policies Cheny, Rumsfield, and Gonzales all told Bush were needed for security. the British remain just as big a target as we are but they haven't lost their civil liberties while keeping their country safe.

not yet we haven't, but certain people are trying their hardest to emulate the Bush 'Fear' program over here too. In the run up to the next election it will be interesting to see how that pans out exactly.
Sadly i get the feeling that many people just dont trust Labour under Blair, and we may well get the torries back in - talk about being stuck between a rock and a hardplace
I'm going with the Liberal party this time around, but i just dont think its their time yet, they dont have the polish of either of the other two parties.


@Tass
I liked your 'communist' cartoon strip - funny how the truth can be such a bitter pill to swallow for some?

And at the thread title......all i seem to hear form over the sea these days is the chant of '1984.......1984'

[Dinner]

The truth is the pentagon is one of the worst run institutions ever. You must spend money or they take it away from you so everyone spends like mad so next year they can ask for a bigger budget. Something is fundamentally wrong with that system. Also almost $600 per year (that's the regular $450 billion Bush is asking for plus the projected $150 billion over the next year for Iraq) we are out spending the next 12-15 countries combined. We have something like 60% of the world's defense spending and Bush says he wants more?

There is hundreds of billions of dollars of pork in that budget. Duplicate defense systems we don't need but some senator wants it because it will make jobs in his state, truly massive overhead (like 12-14 layers of middle managers when even the biggest multinationals get by with 4-8), etc...

Why do we need three slightly different new fighters which all perform with in 5% of each other? Why do we need the styker when it can't even do its stated job? Why do we need a $200 billion (Bush's numbers but reality is closer to $350 billion) missile shield which can't hit jack and won't stop jack any way? This is just the tip of the ice burg we could slash and slash and slash and still have money to give soldiers raises.

[Agathon]

The truth is the pentigon is one of the worst run inventions ever.

Pentagon?

Institutions?

[Dinner]

Happy? I went back and spell checked you spelling Nazi. I'm getting another beer.

[child of Thor]

dont forget to go running tomorrow!

I long for the day when we just throw all our politicians and their systems onto the fire and start over

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Oerdin
This is just the tip of the ice burg we could slash and slash and slash and still have money to give soldiers raises.

And Armor for their Humvees

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Happy? I went back and spell checked you spelling Nazi. I'm getting another beer.

Actually he's a professor. Che is a spelling Nazi.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The British remain just as big a target as we are but they haven't lost their civil liberties while keeping their country safe.

What on earth makes you say that? It's obviously not a look at the anti-terror laws they have.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Actually he's a professor. Che is a spelling Nazi.

No, I'm a grammar nazi.

[alva]

Is't that position taken by Boris?

[Bosh]

3) The medicare drug benifet which was actually a Democrat idea that Bush co-opted when it was obvious it was to popular to oppose (and he did oppose it for the first two years).

And is set up in such a way so as to be a MASSIVE subsidy to drug companies (for example the government isn't getting even the kind of wholesale prices that, say, WalMart gets for the drugs its buying under the system).