I like the whole idea the government shouldn't be spending money they don't have, that would more or less force them to be picky in what they do spend money on.

This is one of the reasons that I'm still confused as to why being fiscally responsible is considered as being conservative at all, since deficit reduction is almost strictly done by liberals.

Even if dear old Bush vetoed the budget it has TOO MUCH support from both sides of aisle to stay put down but instead the veto would be overturn and they might try to stick some more things in it...Catch 22 Budgeting. Need new parties in Congress who have a sense of fiscal responsibility, though it would cut funding from "feel good" programs but one cannot have there cake and eat it too if one wants to balance the budget and pay down the debt.
2006 Elections are coming up fast and only than can something be done about this not by voting for Fiscal irresponsible Dems or Reps but voting for Fiscal Responsible Parties and People.

Though one happy note despite this fiscal irresponsibility was the turndown of a Intelligence Czar, which in IMO is the first step into a nation under Big Brother for Big Brother ruled by Big Brother, if people complain now over the Patriot Act...it would pale in comparison to a Intel Czar. No matter how you try to justify it the Intel Czar is a VERY BAD idea for people who want Liberty.

- Grim of the Grims
Member of Spleen Tap

I read that Bush is planning on cutting funds for federal Pell Grants to help pay for the proposed tax cuts. I hope that isn't the case because the Pell Grant budget is facing short falls as it is. The last thing we want are kids not being able to go to college because they can't get the money they need.

Yes, but you know how they can get money for college? Are you following my thinking?

Reply By: Deference Posted: Monday, November 22, 2004
Where are the fiscal conservatives?

(open plea to Draginol for awesome article / post)

Good luck, I tried to explain to Draginol that deficits are bad, but he seems to be pro-deficit. Here's an excerpt from my blog, actual quotes:

(After I explain that Canada has a surplus:)

Draginol: " So you currently have a budgetary surplus. So what. The US had one too until 2001 and it'll probably have them in the future. "

"As a % of GDP, the US's deficit isn't particularly high. If GDP grows faster than spending a bit we would be in surplus again."

"Canada isn't in deficit at this very second. Whoopie. Let me know when you guys pay off that debt. In about a century or two it should be paid down at your current rate (2003 "surplus" was $7 billion). Your INTEREST on your debt is almost 6 times that amount. So your "suruplus" isn't even enough to pay for your interest payments."

Doesn't sound like he thinks the deficit is a big deal, does it?

As I pointed out to him, surplus is calculated AFTER our interest payments have been made. Anyone with formal education in Fiscal Policy would know that. And our debt should be gone in 25 years, not 100. So I'm not sure Draginol is your guy if you want a fiscal conservative. Maybe I can help?

Kindest Regards,
David St. Hubbins

David David David.... Canada’s deficit was around 40 billions in the early 90's (relatively speaking, it’s about the same thing the U.S. has now). They simply slashed the governmental budget drastically in Martin’s 95 budget. The United States will have to do the same eventually.

The biggest risks reside in the fact that the United States doesn’t control most of its economy. If the world community loses its trust in the dollar (for example, if ever OPEC would decide to price their barrels of oil in Euros instead of Dollars), then the economy could easily crash.

and the fun aint really gonna start til the new congress takes over.  always happens when one party--either party--is given a 'mandate' by fact of being majority party in the house, senate and whitehouse.  forget about man-woman marriages and worry more about lawmaker-man dates  

Perhaps this graph makes it easier to picutre.

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

And I don't understand how the Republican congress could be part of the deficit reduction when they clearly don't care much about it now.

Yes, but you know how they can get money for college? Are you following my thinking?

I am.

 

Well cut too much....you are a heartless Republican taking checks from Seniors, lunches from school children, destroying our environment, and denying minorities educational opportunities.

In simpler terms, how about this headline (linked) from Drudge Report: BUDGET BLOAT: FEDS SUBSIDIZE 'ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME', WILD-HOG CONTROL...

Which details a few things:

... The spending plan awaiting President Bush's signature ... doling out $4 million for an Alabama fertilizer development center, $1 million each for a Norwegian American Foundation in Seattle and a "Wild American Shrimp Initiative," and more, much more. ... ... also raised the ire of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a pork-barrel critic who took to the Senate floor to ask whether shrimp are so unruly and lacking initiative that the government must spend $1 million on them. ... Among items in the package: $335,000 to protect North Dakota's sunflowers from blackbirds, $2.3 million for an animal waste management research lab in Bowling Green, Ky., $50,000 to control wild hogs in Missouri, and $443,000 to develop salmon-fortified baby food. Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee, won dozens of special items for his state — enough to fill 20 press releases. In one aimed at northern Alabama, Shelby took credit for the $4 million budgeted for the International Fertilizer Development Center. "In addition to the important research conducted at this facility, the facility employs numerous Muscle Shoals-area residents," he noted. ... Missouri Republican Sens. Kit Bond and Jim Talent and Republican Rep. Jo Ann Emerson on Monday announced federal money for three-dozen projects in southern Missouri, including $50,000 for wild-hog control. Ohio Reps. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Democrat, and Steven LaTourette, a Republican, boasted about $350,000 for music education programs at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. ... Michigan's two Democratic senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, let it be known they had won $4 million for an environmentally friendly public transportation system in Traverse City. ... The targeted spending was so prolific that McCain had no problem filling a half-hour speech with examples. The shrimp program really stuck in his craw. "I am hoping that the appropriators could explain to me why we need $1 million for this — are American shrimp unruly and lacking initiative?" he asked. McCain's query went unanswered, in part because spending documents don't identify who proposed each item or why.

Again, do we really need these items? Are they benefiting the nation as a whole? That should be the first question asked when adding these ear marks to the budget.

Reply #21 By: Citizen jeblackstar - 11/24/2004 9:45:07 AM Yes, but you know how they can get money for college? Are you following my thinking? Prostitution? It's sad but true, but at least two of my students in past decade have told me they were prostitutes in order to pay for college.

There's been plenty of stories of strippers that were doing that job because it paid them very well and provided them plenty of money to go to school on.

Too bad that's primarily a job for women, and tends to be one that many people considering degrading at that.

Poor milque toast white males tend to get left out in the cold in that area.