Bush to reduce deficit with domestic cuts?
99771
The whoal thing is a joke...Reduce deficit..lol...WAKE UP AMERICA...I dunno what the heck you guys are doing...but...get off the couch and do something about it..Bush is killing America and its freedoms..and his sights seem set for  the world..that will not happen...the world will not tolerate as much as America does to its own...
856930
that's what the media says.\nbut honestly that just being nice to republicans.\nit should be a referendum on the coruption we've seen ( including the war)\npeople need to ask themselves what did the repulicans promise us when they came to power.\nhas there " conservativeness" really saved the country money?\nBill Clinton had a surplus at the end of his second term, do you think bush will be able to claim the same?
86310
I don't know about the newsletter but the statement on the budget on her website intead bashes tax cuts for the oil companies and other corporate loopholes. Now I mat not agree wth how Hillary wants to spend our money. But I sure don't believe that any part of the Billions of dollars of tax cuts and excess profits of the oil companies is going to trickle down into my pocket.\n\nIn detailing the devastating budget cuts, Senator Clinton noted the irony of the majority’s willingness to finance corporate tax breaks while taking a budget axe to programs critical to working families.\n\n“Consider this, the $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil companies contained in the Energy Bill, one in a series of irresponsible corporate-tax giveaways, would cover the health care costs of an additional 1.7 million kids nationwide,” Senator Clinton said. “The Republican majority is also proposing an approximately $700 million cut in food stamps. Simply reinstating the superfund polluter tax, which forces companies that pollute to bear the expense of clean-up instead of average taxpayers, would alone generate $7.3 billion over the next ten years – more than ten times the cost of the food stamp cut.” \n\n“And if we simply took the $18 billion revenue raising package adopted by the Senate in its tax bill – which repeals, among other loopholes, another $4.3 billion tax giveaway to oil companies and cracks down on abusive corporate tax transactions, such as setting up offshore in tax havens like Bermuda to avoid paying U.S. taxes – we would be able to avoid the painful increases in costs to students striving to better themselves through a college education,” Clinton added. “Instead, we are looking at the largest cut to aid in the history of the student loan program. An average student saddled with $17,500 in student loans would pay up to $5,800 in additional payments under the Republican plan. Approximately 472,000 New York students would see an increase in costs.”\n\nClinton concluded by stating, “What the Republican majority has proposed is not what is best for America, because it undermines our long-held tradition of supporting families by providing the tools they need to make American the best it can be. The economic policies of the majority and this Administration defy both arithmetic and reality. It’s time that we go back to a conservative fiscal policy that pays as you go, doesn’t spend what you don’t have, and produces balanced budgets and surpluses that will enable us to prepare for the future. And it’s time that we return to policies that truly value all American families.”
119508
People want to cut defense spending, I think, because they have no concept of what the Federal Budget actually looks like.  The 2007 budget is slated to spend about 17% on defense, while spending about 58% on entitlements and about 9% on interest on the debt.  We could cut military spending all day and it would hardly dent the budget.  We need to cut spending on entitlements (medicare, social security, medicaid, welfare) to get the budget and spending under control.\n\nIf you look at US military spending as a percentage of GDP, it is just about at an all-time recent low at 3.7% in 2003.  This is very low.  The USSR spent between 15% - 17% of it's GDP on the military in the mid 80's.
763808
Foreign National Debt is above 3 trillion at record levels so I say no. Current US fiscal policy is designed to move wealth to the upper class from the middle class. The government does not seem to want to protect the majority of its people but thats what we deserve for voting in these leaders.
951582
Democrats cut taxes?!  ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
170812
Vote for senators and representatives who are honestly committed to cutting spending.  For example, vote Libertarian!
563242
Sorry, but GWB is a Republican in name only. He's been the most fiscally reckless Republican in this nation's history (for the record, I am a registered Republican, but I voted for John Kerry as the lesser of two evils) and it makes perfect sense that the GOP is fracturing right now. Bush has been infuriating both Dems and the GOP, which takes talent--if you call it that. As for this funding, this $500M cut is just a drop in the bucket compared to the total budget. $500M isn't going to make a dent in the budget deficit, so I think that hype over this one cut is really overblown.\n\nBill Clinton may have been a louse, but at least he balanced the books...but that's a different topic altogether. :-)
681586
Well, the last Democrat in office came close to budget surplus (but you can see Republicans won't admit it) and he didn't have a 8 Trillion dollar debt.\n\n"President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it, he fixed it.  In his first two years and with a cooperative Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced.  Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostel Congress in history for the last six years of his administration, yet he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office.  Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the first year of the Kennedy administration.\n\nReagan called for a balance budget amendment but never submitted a balanced budget.The current President Bush came into office and quickly turned all that progress around.  He immediately gave yet another massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better.  \n\nThe last year Clinton was in office the nation borrowed an additional 18 billion dollars, the first year Bush Jr. was in office he had to borrow 270 billion.  The tax cut that caused this borrowing was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut.  The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work.  Economic history tells us the second did not work either.  As a result of all this tax cutting and no cutting in what he is spending President Bush set a record in 2003 for the biggest single yearly increase in debt in the nation’s history, again in 2004,2005 and by his own estimations he will break this record again in 2006.  The debt is now increasing at the rate of 600 billion dollars a year[ \n\nOur economy could collapse, especially when the Euro replaces the dollar as the world standard.\n\nAdditionally, China doesn't have to go to war with the US. They only have to call in the debt we owe them. Japan can do the same.
437976
no tax cut unless you are rich\nand there will be no tax reform \naussie dog howard is going to have every worker paid less\nand pay more tax .\nmy question is who are the dickheads that keep putting him in power buy voting for this dog of a goverment
896091
lower unemployment rate.  exactly what tax cuts do raise job market\n\nGross Domestic Product (GDP)\nTotal annual output of the U.S. economy, measured by its final purchase price. \nGDP is divided into four categories, according to the final purchaser: \n\n\nGDP = Consumer Spending \n+ Business and Residential Investment \n+ Government Spending \n- Trade Deficit. \n\nyou are not gonna get intelligent responses because your understanding of FACTS is wrong.  Learn what GDP is.
329850
Let's see.  Raised taxes and cut back on spending.  Left office with a multimillon dollar surplus... it takes a REAL CONservative like president Chimp to loot the nation and drive the economy into a black hole.
362611
We need solutions and I hate to hope for it but....honesty. The Iraq war is a mistake! We spend a DISQUSTING amount of $$ on a huge, useless military. We need someone who will realize and admit this to the American public so that the situation can be fixed. The incredibly stupid and regressive tax cuts need to stop also. I think that once we free up all of those monies, we can use it to solve big problems that most Americans really care about. Namely, top rate education and healthcare.
138563
I assume youre talking about the neil boortz book. If so, then yes, his idea "in theory" works out great. With the prebates to cover the necessities of life, and only being charged a tax for what you pay for.. however we will never get to see it in practice. I can't see any govt, republican or democrat controlled knowingly reducing the amount of money they get from their people. If it does go in play, numermous programs will need to be cut b/c we won't have the money to run them. \n\nLean republican.
1076458
President George W. Bush has made major tax reform almost inevitable, but not in the way he probably imagines. In his first term, the president compiled a record of dramatically lowering or eliminating taxes on wealthy Americans, huge estates, and various corporate special interests, while modestly trimming income taxes on average families. The legacy of his tax program has been a return to large structural budget deficits, a fast-growing national debt, a plummeting national savings rate, and record trade and current-account gaps that have dramatically devalued the dollar. \nThis is a path of national economic decline -- and the president has signaled that he hopes to go even further in his second term with not just more tax cuts, but a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax system. There has even been talk of replacing the current progressive system with a flat tax or a national sales tax. \nBut the American public has no appetite for that sort of reform. In fact, the only way to successfully address this fiscal mess is to head in the other direction, toward a more progressive tax system, in which rich Americans and profitable corporations pay their fair shares, deficits are brought under control, and the world regains confidence in the U.S. dollar. This is a policy direction that Bush cannot -- and would never -- take, because it would repudiate his own program. Only progressives can lead the country in that direction. \nMost Americans say they want to see real tax reforms, especially of the sort that progressives have long favored. They want higher income tax rates for high incomes, lower tax rates on low incomes, and more taxes on corporations. According to a recent survey by NBC, 54 percent of Americans think the current system is basically unfair, compared with 40 percent who don't. Further, most people think the real issue is not just the system's enormous complexity, but how that complexity enables the wealthiest Americans to avoid paying their fair share. \nGallup reports that 68 percent now believe the rich pay too little. By a margin of 55 percent to 39 percent, Americans would choose a progressive tax system "like the one we have now, with higher rates for people with higher incomes," over "a flat tax with the same rate for everyone, and no deductions allowed." \nOne surprising finding is that most Americans are not clamoring for more tax cuts. Sixty-one percent are satisfied that they pay about the right amount in taxes, compared with 34 percent who think they pay too much. But almost no one wants to pay higher taxes: Just 2 percent think they now pay less than their fair share, which is probably a reasonable measure of the number of truly committed rich liberals in the country. \nThe president may not realize it yet, but his position is untenable. He cannot pass a radical reform agenda, because the public isn't with him, and he can't go back -- even if he wants to -- because his own party would desert or attack him. \nThe legacy of Bush's tax program will fall mainly to younger Americans and future generations. They are the ones who will be left holding the tab. Working families will have to make much higher interest payments on a much larger national debt. In all likelihood, they will also have to pay higher income taxes to finally close the Bush deficits. \nLong before that time comes, harsh political and economic realities dictate that progressives should actively take up the issue of tax reform. For starters, the Bush administration is ready to press the issue now, with yet more tax cuts for wealthy people. The White House is confident that its proposals will cater to its ultra-conservative, tax-phobic base while also changing the subject of public discussion from the failed campaign to uproot the Social Security system. If progressives do nothing but oppose the president's proposals, they'll end up defending a status quo that Americans reject as unfair. \nThe admini
1023899
Yes-eventually debt will be addressed. You can put it off for so long but its still there. Not one President-not one has done much to improve it. And many refuse to see it. History shows it happens-time and time again. And when it does many will blame that man instead of all. They will run out of places to cut. And than they will work on trying to hold it. But it will come.
850533
The long and the short of it is that government cut spending and balanced the budget under the Clinton administration, then STARTED collected more taxes than were being spent by the time Bush took office. This amounted to a PROJECTED surplus, not a real one "yet."\n\nBush continued and worked on cutting domestic spending (where Clinton cut spending in military) and pushed through tax cuts to stimulate the economy that was floundering when he took office, and then, of course the war on terror broke out. Though 'fixing social security' and rebuilding the military was part of his platform, (he really needed to rebuild it quickly now). Any of the PROJECTED surplus was spent away and the budget hasn't been balanced since (go figure) and no additional debt reduction was ever pursued.\n\nSo, the surplus you hear about never really came into being and the national debt has been steadily going up for over 50 years without any sign of being reduced. \n\nSo, since most of the government's IOU's are in the budget columns of social security, you had better invest into a 401k! Hope that makes sense....