Bush's budget slashing

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
More guns less butter...

All of you pro-war people; where did you think the money was going to come from? 22b already taken from social security for the Iraq war and now...

The priorities of the Bush administration are clear. There are substantial increases in spending on the military, the Department of Homeland Security and the intelligence and diplomatic services: all the institutions of violence and propaganda on behalf of American imperialism. Those federal agencies charged with responsibility for health, education, environmental protection and social welfare face across-the-board cuts.

In raw numbers, the $19 billion increase in Pentagon spending—up from $400 billion to $419 billion—almost exactly equals the nearly $20 billion in cuts on various social programs. The equation is not accidental. In the choice between guns and butter, the Bush White House has come down unequivocally on the side of guns.

EducationThe Department of Education would be cut 1 percent, its first actual reduction under Bush. Education programs account for 50 of the 150 programs Bush has proposed to eliminate or substantially cut. The largest single cut is the elimination of the $6 billion Perkins loan program. This more than offsets a slight increase in Pell Grants, where the maximum grant will rise by $100 per student, per year.

A total of $2 billion is to be cut from high school education, including vocational education, Upward Bound, Talent Search and other programs to help poor and minority students prepare for college. The Even Start program, to promote literacy among children whose parents are illiterate, is being scrapped, as well as two programs, costing $474 million, to reduce drug and alcohol abuse among students.

Health care accounts for the largest single cut. Proposed changes to Medicaid, the federal health plan for the poor, call for taking $60 billion out of the program over the next decade. [See “Bush plans renewed assault on Medicaid”]

Other cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services include $100 million from a $300 million program to train doctors at children’s hospitals, and 64 percent of the budget for training other health professionals. The budget eliminates a $9 million program for the treatment of people with spinal cord injuries and $9.9 million to derive stem cells from blood extracted from umbilical cords—not from embryos. Meanwhile there are increases in programs that amount to little more than religious indoctrination: $280 million to promote marriage preservation, sexual abstinence, and “responsible fatherhood,” administered through contracts with “faith-based” organizations.

HousingBush proposes to consolidate five separate housing and community development programs, currently funded at $5.7 billion, into a single program costing $3.7 billion and administered by the Commerce Department, traditionally more aligned with business interests. Housing for the disabled would be cut nearly in half, by $118 million, as well as housing assistance of those with AIDS and for Native Americans. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which subsidizes heating bills, would be cut 8.4 percent, even amid soaring fuel and energy prices. Another $143 million would be cut from a program to clear severely deteriorated housing stock.

Job training will be cut back significantly, through the consolidation of four training programs administered by the states, and the elimination of the job training for migrant farmworkers and young people newly released from prison. The Labor Department’s overall budget will be cut by 4.4 percent.

Food and agriculture spending will fall sharply. Food stamp benefits would be eliminated for 200,000 to 300,000 people, and a freeze in child-care funding would cut the number of low-income children receiving help by 300,000 in 2009. Bush aims to save $57 million this year and $1.1 billion over 10 years by denying food assistance to poor families—those with incomes well below the poverty line, but slightly above the level that guarantees eligibility for cash welfare benefits. The Community Food and Nutrition program would be eliminated.

Bush also proposed $8.2 billion in cuts to farm subsidies, which will undoubtedly affect small and medium-size farmers more than the large corporate farmers who are in a position to influence the language of the appropriations bill. Farmers will be compelled to purchase larger amounts of private insurance in order to qualify for federal disaster relief, a requirement that will certainly push many smaller farmers out of the market.

The environmentA half-billion dollars will be cut from water-quality and sewage programs at the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as programs for land restoration and preservation. The Superfund, the EPA’s program for cleaning up the most toxic industrial and mining sites, is perpetually underfunded.

There is a 1.1 percent cut in the Department of the Interior, with a 3 percent cut at the National Park Service and a 5 percent cut for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, nearly $110 million cut from programs for America’s indigenous population, the most impoverished social group. At the Department of Energy, money for cleaning up nuclear waste sites will be reduced, even as more money is spent on building new nuclear weapons.

TransportationBush proposed the elimination of federal subsidies to Amtrak, the national rail passenger system, which would force closure of a vital artery in the northeastern states (none of which voted for Bush). The budget would also cut $250 million for rehabilitating dilapidated railroad lines.

VeteransOne of the most noxious cuts, for an administration whose wars are creating tens of thousands of new disabled veterans, is to VA health programs. The Bush budget would more than double the prescription drug co-payment for some veterans, from $7 to $15, and require an annual enrollment fee of $250 for drug coverage. The charges would affect non-disabled veterans with incomes above the poverty level. The VA will seek to sharply reduce the number of nursing home patients it subsidizes, from 38,000 to 33,000, aiming to shift funding to the influx of new, younger veterans whose bodies or minds have been damaged by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Several VA hospitals will also be closed.

PensionsThe Bush budget calls for a drastic increase in the premiums paid by corporations with pension plans, to finance the deficit of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, whose assets have been drained by the bailout of the steel and airline industry pension funds. Premiums will soar from $2.3 billion last year to $4.4 billion in 2006 and $5.9 billion in 2007. The effect of this measure will be to encourage private companies to cancel traditional defined-benefit plans, which are backed by the PBGC, and go over to 401(k) plans, where the financial risks are borne entirely by workers and not the employer.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#7
haha, sure they do.

Well, lets take SS for example.

6.25% of every one of your checks goes to S.S. This is true for everyone in America, only makes sense right? Well, no. If it's only 6.25% of the first 90,000 you make a year. Everything after that is not subject to tax. So, actually comrade, the rich pay less taxes then the rest of us.

Not only that but a lot of these super rich corporations avoid paying any federal income tax at all.
 
Dec 2, 2004
239
0
0
36
#8
2-0-Sixx said:
haha, sure they do.

Well, lets take SS for example.

6.25% of every one of your checks goes to S.S. This is true for everyone in America, only makes sense right? Well, no. If it's only 6.25% of the first 90,000 you make a year. Everything after that is not subject to tax. So, actually comrade, the rich pay less taxes then the rest of us.
Nah i disagree, the rich still pay more taxes.
Everything after $90,000 isn't subject to SS taxes, but thats just Social Security taxes. The purpose of that rule in the first place is that someone making $90,000+ a year would be getting a bad deal if they had to pay SS on all their income, what they would get back as a beneficiary would be incredibly less than what they payed as a worker.
Why I'm trying to explain this to a commie I don't know. But just realize thats the government's way of keeping the social security system somewhat capitalist.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#9
SHEA said:
fuck giving away all this money to other countries too- fuckers need to stop depending on the U.S.A. to pay thier rent.
While I agree that we need to spend more money on problems at home, it’s important to understand that the U.S isn’t simply giving money away for free. The majority of the funds that America “gives” to other countries for certain tragedies, like Tsunamis or earthquakes, are actually loans. We charge a very high interest rate, sometimes more than 25% to 3rd world countries which leaves them in debt for years and years and we make profit.

We also tend to announce immediately after tragedies that we will give a certain total amount, and later never actually provide the money. A good example is the huge Earthquake that occurred in the city of Bam in Iran in December of 2003, which killed over 30,000 people. Instantly after the Earthquake, Iran was promised $1billion in aid, a year later and only about $12million has reached the city.

It’s all very political, people think, “wow, how generous”, but never hear about the money again.

In certain places, like in Florida after the recent hurricanes for example, the aid is rushed in and all promises made. Why? It was before an election and Florida was one of the key states. People liked the aid coming in and in return, voted Bush.

Take the Tsunami for another example. It took over 3 days before Bush even made a statement. When he did, what did he want to donate? Like 10 million dollars or some shit? Then, after a huge public outcry, they multiplied that amount vastly. Again, mostly all in loans, but the point is it’s all politics.
 
Dec 2, 2004
239
0
0
36
#10
Yea ^^^ the U.S. government is actually just like a huge investment/insurance company with a side business in legislation.
Any grant the government makes it actually profits from in some way or other.
 
Jan 2, 2003
1,439
6
0
#14
TOKZTLI said:
The rich already get taxed close to 50%, that's infuriating to those of us that want to be rich one day.
no they don't....and do u know how many ways there are to write-off taxes?....the rich don't get as fucked as u "think" they do...u need to do sum homework and how the tax system works....say u make $200,000 a year....all that money doesnt get taxed by %38(we'll say)....it goes thru each branch of the different tax brackets...for example...
say...

0-10,000 @ 10%
10,001-50,000 @ 20%
50,001-95,000 @ 30%
etc .etc...ur first 10 g's get taxed at 10%.......then 50 g's at 20%....then 30%....AND THE REMAINING MONEY U HAVE LEFT GETS TAXED AT THE HIGHEST BRACKET YOU FALL INTO.....which in the end is a relatively small percentage of ur total income.....my example isnt the best one but u could end up with like 10 g's getting taxed at the highest tax bracket u fall into...which is WAY different then 200,000...

your average tax rate(i forget the official term),,,,could be like 25%(we'll say)....so in actuallity ur rich DONT GET TAXED AT CLOSE TO 50 PERCENT!!!!

and what happens when BUSH lowers taxes at each bracket??....the RICH GET RICHER......u dont even really have to mess with the upper brackets(the higher incomes)....although he did...but as long as u change the lower ones the rich are richer...
 
Jan 2, 2003
1,439
6
0
#15
thats a common mistake people make....i aint tryin to get on ur back...

i probably woulda said the same thing...but i GOT EDUCATED!!

if u would like me to clarify more....i will...i have A BUNCH of notes i think i still have from my ECON class....that has more "real life" examples opf ur money hitting all the brackets the "average tax rate" with the actual tax rates....
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#16
Hey I tried to follow what you said but, like most folks I'm not that good at math and taxes, I figure you're still getting taxed all the way up the ladder if you make $200,000. Maybe 50% might be a high number but still, it's a lot of money to be forking over at any percentage to the gov. I think it would help me and a lot of other cats on here if you would put up a sample from your econ notes bro.

Also, all the stuff about corporations going tax free, maybe but corporations aren't people. The board members and officers still have to get paid directly and they have to pay taxes on that money. Yeah you can try to write off everything but the IRS does audit so you can't get away with much anyway.

I need to go back to school and get edumacated on this stuff. I've been trying to do my taxes on my own by itemizing for the first time and it sucks.
 
Jan 2, 2003
1,439
6
0
#17
yah fo sho...ill dig thru sum shit...and see if i can find it...no guarantess tho...it'll be clear after a simple example...hopefully i can do it later today...

if u make 200,000 that is up the ladder....but as i saiod...once ur income gets disrtubuted thru the lower tax brackets.... only the remaining income is taxed at ur highest bracket that u fall into...so once ur 200,000 hits the highest tax bracket u fall into there is only like say....10,000-20,000 that actaully gets taxed by that tax bracket....
 
Jul 10, 2002
2,180
18
0
45
#19
Taxes should be 50% across the board (as long as it don't to go the military, corporate subsidies, or religious org.)...

more healthcare (about 50% of bankruptcies are due to medical costs), more towards education, and well, y'all catch my drift...

Haters, your turn...
 
May 2, 2002
9,580
17
0
41
#20
how is bush gonna LOWER taxes and INCREASE federal budget for defense?!! where is he gettin this money that the US doesnt have?

whats the deficit at now? a few trillion?