Bush proposing budget cuts

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Finally. But isn't this just empty because he is not proposing to subject defense or national security spending to the cuts/freeze? If you are going to do this (and there are pros and cons to doing it and not doing it), you at least need to make it apply to all of your pork projects, too--not just the programs that you don't like.

[Dutch]

Didn't we learn last week that you can never spend enough of defense?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Didn't we learn last week that you can never spend enough of defense?

If it saves just one solider's life, it is worth it.

[SirFozzie]

Good for Bush. This is the kinda stuff a second-term Prez can do, because he no longer has to buy votes.

Maybe we should look into a one and done philosophy for Presidents. Give em four years, then get the next guy in.. that way the first four years of an eight year run aren't spent buying the next four years in office (and yes, Clinton did this too)

[Desnudo]

If they'd start cutting some unnecessary agencies, the government would start saving some real money.

[Warhammer]

DAMN! Bad news for me if he starts cutting Army Corps of Engineer water projects...

Better brush off the resume.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Didn't we learn last week that you can never spend enough of defense?

That's right. We need to spend another 158 billion dollars on missile defense so we can make more rockets that won't even fire. (but I'm sure your talking about that 4 billion to save those unimportant whiney faggot National Guardsmen.)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Good for Bush. This is the kinda stuff a second-term Prez can do, because he no longer has to buy votes.

Maybe we should look into a one and done philosophy for Presidents. Give em four years, then get the next guy in.. that way the first four years of an eight year run aren't spent buying the next four years in office (and yes, Clinton did this too)

Unfortunately it's Congress that is in the business of perpetually buying votes and will take any such budget cuts and render them meaningless.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Unfortunately it's Congress that is in the business of perpetually buying votes and will take any such budget cuts and render them meaningless.

Sounds like then term limits for Congress should also be looked at.

3 terms (6 years) for the House and 2 Terms (12 years) for the Senate?

or would you make it even, 12 and 12?

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Finally. But isn't this just empty because he is not proposing to subject defense or national security spending to the cuts/freeze? If you are going to do this (and there are pros and cons to doing it and not doing it), you at least need to make it apply to all of your pork projects, too--not just the programs that you don't like.

Fighting war on terror = pork project

Who knew?
I suppose armored HumVe's is a pork project worthy of cutting as well. Not to mention the fact a good chunck of our theater airlift fleet being used to offset dangerous convoys have no been grounded due to aging restriction. We don't need no stinking C-130J models, let the troops drive in their unarmored cars to keep supply lines open. After all, it's all pork.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Fighting war on terror = pork project

Who knew?
I suppose armored HumVe's is a pork project worthy of cutting as well. Not to mention the fact a good chunck of our theater airlift fleet being used to offset dangerous convoys have no been grounded due to aging restriction. We don't need no stinking C-130J models, let the troops drive in their unarmored cars to keep supply lines open. After all, it's all pork.

You seriously think there is no pork in the Defense budget? I'm not really for cuts there, but I am for restructuring how the money is spent.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Fighting war on terror = pork project

Who knew?
I suppose armored HumVe's is a pork project worthy of cutting as well. Not to mention the fact a good chunck of our theater airlift fleet being used to offset dangerous convoys have no been grounded due to aging restriction. We don't need no stinking C-130J models, let the troops drive in their unarmored cars to keep supply lines open. After all, it's all pork.

My point wasn't that we should cut defense spending--or even not raise it. But if you do spend more money on defense, then spend less on other programs. To do otherwise but then claim that you are putting a cap on government spending is just wrong.

However, from the tenor of your post, I think that you believe that all spending in the name of defense is per se non wasteful. If you cannot see that there is the potential for some wasteful spending in our defense budget, then you and I see the world so differently that it would be pointless for us to discuss this any further.

And I am sorry if I misstated your point.

[duckman]

I saw many occassions of wasteful defense spending so that the budget would be raised the following budget.