Get ready for John "More of the same" McCain.

Bush has promised his budget will keep the government on track to run a surplus in 2012. But the steps required to do that - and keep his promise to extend tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 beyond their expiration at the end of 2010 - are hardly realistic.

If a fact (like the cost of war) conflicts with ideology then ignore it. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Are we officially pegged to the Yuan yet?

Bill Frist: Get ready for John "More of the same" McCain.

#14--you're on a friggin' roll, boy!

Can we just give the financial reigns over to someone more
responsible and less apt to make irresponsible decisions? Someone
like James Spears. Not only will he curb the irresponsible
spending, but he will clear the pressroom of those pesky
reporter-types.

"Bush has promised his budget will keep the government on track to run a surplus in 2012."


And if there is one thing we can all trust, it is a promise from George W Bush.

I thought congress had the budget duties.

Relax, Libtard.
The Pentagon helps lots of people.
All of those service men and women have to spend their paychecks on something. Ever see what happens to some military towns when the local base goes bye-bye?

"Bush has promised his budget will keep the government on track to run a surplus in 2012."

But this is easy. Just put Diebold in charge of all the State lotteries, and allocate enough to buy the winning ticket for the next four years in all of them, making sure the prizes are not shared.

ndotseth:Relax, Libtard.
The Pentagon helps lots of people.
All of those service men and women have to spend their paychecks on something. Ever see what happens to some military towns when the local base goes bye-bye?


Are you kidding me? You actually think the service people in our country make money they can spend? You think this money is to pay them? Okay Rush, sure. Mega dittos.

I'm getting paid!!!

that man just keeps finding ways to be less and less like Ike.

MorningBreath: I thought congress had the budget duties.

Bush will submit the budget to Congress. Congress will alter and ratify it. Then Bush will add a dozen signing statements to it, essentially changing it back the way he wanted it in the first place.

/it's good to be the King

Bill Frist: Get ready for John "More of the same" McCain.

You got the government you deserve.

Enjoy.

ndotseth: Relax, Libtard.
The Pentagon helps lots of people.
All of those service men and women have to spend their paychecks on something. Ever see what happens to some military towns when the local base goes bye-bye?

You forgot the huge boost to prosthetics makers and long-term nursing businesses to care for tens of thousands of new customers, and then the new prison construction when we run out of money to care for them, toss them on the street, and get tired of looking at them panhandling. Is this a great country or what?

SilentStrider: that man just keeps finding ways to be less and less like Ike.

BINGO!

It's for the good of the country.

We have to die over here, so we don't have to die over there.

Well, I guess that extra 600 bucks will help pay bills, the mortgage and but gas for car for one year. *phew* thank God Bush is there to look out for the little people.

But But But rebate!

Sleeping Monkey:
Bush will submit the budget to Congress. Congress will alter and ratify it. Then Bush will add a dozen signing statements to it, essentially changing it back the way he wanted it in the first place.

Signing statements? Unlikely, as they're ineffectual.

However, I would expect him to use any Congressional increase in spending as a political bludgeon -- claiming that Democrats are 'tax-and-spend', budget-busting, not fiscally conservative, et al if they try to spend more than he's proposing; and to claim that they're risking the security of the nation if they try to spend less on DOD.

Furthermore, any 'earmarks' are likely going to be blasted as wasteful pork, even if they're a tiny part of the expenditures and even though he's cheerfully approved them for the previous budget.

B-b-but fiscal conservatism!

Shaggy_C: B-b-but fiscal conservatism!

Oh hush, it's just money. We have paper, we have ink, we'll just print more!

Jesus H. Christ on a stick... sometimes I don't even think we will make it until July much less Jan. 2009. This guy has proven to us time and time again to be a total that is COMPLETELY out of touch with reality. The GOP really doesn't want to win the presidency anymore. If we are just going to see more of this Bush-like behavior from McCain, and it comes to a McCain and Clinton race, I will have no other choice but to hold my nose and vote for Clinton. This type of fiscal irresponsibility coupled with complete disregard for ones citizens is completely inexcusable. What are we? North Korea?! Clinton may be an unlikable biatch, but she seems to have an iota more concern for the people of this country than BuchCo seems to have*.
*or not

Bill Frist

Get ready for John "More of the same" McCain.

No shiat. A guy who thinks we should be fighting wars for another 100 to 1000 years and who self admitedly says he knows jack shiat about the economy.

I wonder sometimes if McCain wants to secretly make true those sci-fi visions of the future where we are all wearing dirty clothes in tin shacks while we use our laser rifles to cook the rat meat we saved up that week.

ndotseth:
All of those service men and women have to spend their paychecks on something. Ever see what happens to some military towns when the local base goes bye-bye?

I don't think a single dollar of that money is being put there to increase soldier pay.

fn129: Jesus H. Christ on a stick... sometimes I don't even think we will make it until July much less Jan. 2009. This guy has proven to us time and time again to be a total that is COMPLETELY out of touch with reality. The GOP really doesn't want to win the presidency anymore. If we are just going to see more of this Bush-like behavior from McCain, and it comes to a McCain and Clinton race, I will have no other choice but to hold my nose and vote for Clinton. This type of fiscal irresponsibility coupled with complete disregard for ones citizens is completely inexcusable. What are we? North Korea?! Clinton may be an unlikable biatch, but she seems to have an iota more concern for the people of this country than BuchCo seems to have*.
*or not

You could vote for Ron Paul you know. He won't win or anything, but his speaches are all fiscal conservatism and ending the war, so if he gets a Nader sized blip everybody goes "oh they're still talking about that stuff somewhere?" And maybe in four years somebody less crazy will try championing that sort of stuff.

On a more realistic note, just hope Obama gets the nod.

Susan Eisenhower? Newsweek actually ran that headline and backed it up with a no one like that?

Get back to me when someone of significance endorses Barry.

I'm also particularly proud of the 20% increase provided for the Army... to their suicide rate.

Mission farking Accomplished indeed.

Can we just give the financial reigns over to someone more
responsible and less apt to make irresponsible decisions? Someone
like James Spears. Not only will he curb the irresponsible
spending, but he will clear the pressroom of those pesky
reporter-types.

Thought you said Jamie Spears there for a second, hell we could pass the financial reigns over the Brittany Spears and you'd see more financial conservatism that this drunken congress.

Counter_Intelligent: ndotseth:
All of those service men and women have to spend their paychecks on something. Ever see what happens to some military towns when the local base goes bye-bye?

I don't think a single dollar of that money is being put there to increase soldier pay.

This. The Bush administration has already fought numerous attempts to increase pay and medical care for soldiers. That money will go to the defense contractors already making billions of dollars.

Oh, and military towns are essentially living off welfare. I thought that was a bad thing?

doyner [TotalFark] Quote 2008-02-01 09:10:07 PM
Bill Frist: Get ready for John "More of the same" McCain.

#14--you're on a friggin' roll, boy!


This thread wasn't mine, but I did get 4 of my first 8 submitted links approved today!

Bill Frist: This thread wasn't mine, but I did get 4 of my first 8 submitted links approved today!

Damn, and you didn't even resort to low-blow trollerific headlines. I'm still trying to live down my "The ultra-secretive and uncooperative Bush administration turns over document #1,000,000 to Congress since 2006. In other news, still no indictments. Keep fishing, libs" thread. I got desperate :P

Falcc

You could vote for Ron Paul you know. He won't win or anything, but his speaches are all fiscal conservatism and ending the war, so if he gets a Nader sized blip everybody goes "oh they're still talking about that stuff somewhere?" And maybe in four years somebody less crazy will try championing that sort of stuff.


What needs to happen with that idea, is that someone who stands a real chance of winning needs to run under those policies, but as an independant.

Yeah, technically Paul is running as a Republican but he is not at all a modern day "conservative". He's not a Libertarian either, which is a huge misconception. He's a constitutionalist which is a noteable difference.

Libertarian ideas are pretty good if one would take the time to read up on the issues. The problem then, becomes that the neo-nazi biker who smokes meth comes out of the woodwork and holds up a sign supporting the alternative candidate. The media skews that as being the majority of the alternative candidates support base, and otherwise intelligent thinking people fall away into a fear mindset of "Oh I don't want to be associated with those people." so they vote for the status quo where it's "safe".

Look at the question asking for Kucinich! God, that pissed me off. "Have you ever seen a UFO?" How ridiculous is that?

I don't care if his answer would have been, "Yes, and I was abuducted by said UFO and sexually violated for research on the planet Neptune." It was totally irresponsible of the media to even ask such a stupid question. And anyone afteward who didn't follow Kucinich much now just knew him as "The weird little guy who saw a UFO."

Whoa! That guy is crazy! I don't want to vote for him! What will the neighbours think? ETC.

At the same time, a popular program that provides heating subsidies to the poor would be cut by $570 million, to $2 billion.

Nice so as energy costs are skyrocketing, do in part to the deregulation shiat, we can cut the budget to heat low income homes by 70%.

Abstinence education programs popular with social conservatives would get a 25 percent increase to $137 million.

Well I guess this makes it all better then.

Necrosis: Counter_Intelligent: ndotseth:
All of those service men and women have to spend their paychecks on something. Ever see what happens to some military towns when the local base goes bye-bye?

I don't think a single dollar of that money is being put there to increase soldier pay.

This. The Bush administration has already fought numerous attempts to increase pay and medical care for soldiers. That money will go to the defense contractors already making billions of dollars.

Oh, and military towns are essentially living off welfare. I thought that was a bad thing?

Oh come on! That's not true. If it were wouldn't everyone hve quit the army to protest by now? It's not like everyone in the army is too busy to keep up on the news, after all THE SURGE IS WORKING!!!!111eleventy

/Sorry
//The real apologists just weren't cutting it for me

Oh good, the NIH takes it up the tailpipe again. Hooray science!

Counter_Intelligent: I don't think a single dollar of that money is being put there to increase soldier pay.

I knew a bunch of people in the Navy when Bush was going into office in 2001 and they were excited about their raise in pay he was promising. I think most of them got $50 or so a month more.

Since departments such as Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security will be getting increases, that means other agencies would bear difficult cuts.

I'm all for increasing Veteran's benefits but are they going to be anywhere close to what they were before Bush went into office. That poor program has been gutted recently.

StrikitRich: Susan Eisenhower? Newsweek actually ran that headline and backed it up with a no one like that?

Get back to me when someone of significance endorses Barry.

Dear Mr. Troll,

The thread you are looking for is one level down.

Sincerely,

Zombie

/Who knew you needed MapQuest to navigate the Fark Politics tab?

ndotseth: Relax, Libtard.
The Pentagon helps lots of people.
All of those service men and women have to spend their paychecks on something. Ever see what happens to some military towns when the local base goes bye-bye?

Ah, ha ha ha ha. You think the majority of that money goes to service people. You are stupid. Unrecoverably stupid. That money goes to pay consultants like me more than $500K/year to go to meetings for 20 hours/week for projects that will never see the light of day.

Good lord, you are a moron. Christ, you must be from the midwest.

Just remember, your kid's future is paying my fees. I may be an asshole, but I'm not a hypocrite.

Gwendoyln

I'm all for increasing Veteran's benefits but are they going to be anywhere close to what they were before Bush went into office. That poor program has been gutted recently.

I'm fine with the Veteran part as well.

The Department of Homeland Security however, should be nixed entirely.

This department is nothing but a financial albatross that does nothing that the FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD, etc can't already do. We are no safer because of this money pit.

I can't wait until Ron Paul uses all the money he's raised to hire an army of techno-geeks to rig all the Diebold voting machines on Super Tuesday in order to win his party's nomination.

"Bush has promised his budget will keep the government on track to run a surplus in 2012. But the steps required to do that - and keep his promise to extend tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 beyond their expiration at the end of 2010 - are hardly realistic."

Ever consider, Liberal Media, that if the lefttard Defeatocrats weren't blocking the permanent extension of Bush's tax cuts that we would be running a surpluss in 2012?

Bush: Right on Iraq, right on tax cuts, right on spending, right on Islamofascism.

Liberal Media:

glaurunge: Ever consider, Liberal Media, that if the lefttard Defeatocrats weren't blocking the permanent extension of Bush's tax cuts that we would be running a surpluss in 2012?

Bush's budget has had a surplus planned 3 years out every year since 2003. How's that worked out so far?

Mentat: Oh good, the NIH takes it up the tailpipe again. Hooray science!

Pray harder.

Every single person who voted for Bush should be tarred and feathered.

Stay home next Election Day, please.

glaurunge: Ever consider, Liberal Media, that if the lefttard Defeatocrats weren't blocking the permanent extension of Bush's tax cuts that we would be running a surpluss in 2012?

Bush: Right on Iraq, right on tax cuts, right on spending, right on Islamofascism.

too over the top, i give it a 5. But only because I'm feeling generous.

SilentStrider: glaurunge: Ever consider, Liberal Media, that if the lefttard Defeatocrats weren't blocking the permanent extension of Bush's tax cuts that we would be running a surpluss in 2012?

Bush: Right on Iraq, right on tax cuts, right on spending, right on Islamofascism.

too over the top, i give it a 5. But only because I'm feeling generous.
SilentStrider: glaurunge: Ever consider, Liberal Media, that if the lefttard Defeatocrats weren't blocking the permanent extension of Bush's tax cuts that we would be running a surpluss in 2012?

Bush: Right on Iraq, right on tax cuts, right on spending, right on Islamofascism.

too over the top, i give it a 5. But only because I'm feeling generous.

I feel that there needs to be more of a distinction between utilizing sarcasm and irony to make a point, and just plain old trolling.

madmann [TotalFark] 2008-02-01 11:16:54 PM
Shaggy_C: B-b-but fiscal conservatism!

Oh hush, it's just money. We have paper, we have ink, we'll just print more!

You're what's wrong with this country. Have you seen the price of ink?

The military now accounts for more than 50% of our federal budget. In 2007, the military alone spent 1.2 trillion dollars.

A Republican presidency ensures those runaway expenditures continue another four years. Mind you, Bush tax cuts have ensured that our tax revenues won't cover the military budget alone.

Any time a Republican attacks any social plan as being "too expensive," consider that the increases in military spending during the Bush administration would have paid for universal health care for every American until 2100.