Bush Proposes to Add $48 Billion to Pentagon's Budget Next Year.
January 23, 2002 2:33 PM   Subscribe

Bush Proposes to Add $48 Billion to Pentagon's Budget Next Year. Is this where all of this money should be going? Personally, I would have liked to have seen Bush make good on his promise to help New York. Besides, I've already lived through the Eighties.
posted by xammerboy (15 comments total)
 
I have chosen to abstain from Metafilter lately, but listening to this story on NPR this afternoon was so utterly exasperating. To roughly quote Bush: "Yes, this will mean we go deeper into debt, but that's what is necessary to fight this war."

From here on out, it seems, this really is the mantra: we must do "x" because the war must be won. With no oppostion from Daschle (not to mention Wellstone, Harkin, et al. - Oh, where have ye gone?), the country goes marching off to war, whistling Dixie, inflated to the bursting point with disgusting self-righteousness.

Bleech, this country is so full of shit.
posted by mapalm at 2:45 PM on January 23, 2002


Let him dig a hole. It'll be that much easier to keep using my politcal rule of thumb:

The 80s sucked, and we had Republican presidents
The 90s were a big improvement, and we had Clinton

Every move like this gives me hope that others may take notice and stop voting for the debt party.
posted by jragon at 3:28 PM on January 23, 2002


Why not let the President lead down the road of deficit spending and implode under his own misguided right wing. Really, it leaves the Democratic politicos ample cannon fodder for the coming elections. Don't fight the battle now when it can be flung back at the President in a more public forum. I for one think that tax cuts combined with increased spending is STUPID, but apparently Republicans think otherwise.
posted by shagoth at 3:28 PM on January 23, 2002


Er.... um.....what a crock.

The 90s sucked, until the Republican Congress took office. Why? Not because they were Republicrats, but because there was no longer unity in government. It would take compromise to get things done, and business knows that compromise takes time, effort, and keeps government out of the way for a while.

The Democrats were in Congressional power for the longest runup of debt this country has ever seen, and are well known as the "Tax and Spend" party. The Republicans haven't been in power long enough to gain such a moniker, but I can say that their presence in Congress, at the same time the budget balanced for the first time in forever, can't be accidental.

The president, for all he tries to do, merely suggests budget. Congress creates and passes it. The President can decide not to sign, and can hold the country hostage (like Clinton did), but ultimately it is the Congress that crafts the debt. Congress is only recently Republican, so don't blame them for what's happening in the economy.

Oh, and Clinton's economy started before he took office, and only ramped up when the congress switched. GWB's recession started three to nine months before he took office, and over a year before any budget he's a part of would take effect.

As for me.....Harry Browne still didn't win.
posted by dwivian at 3:39 PM on January 23, 2002


Oh, and the last time we had increased spending and a tax cut, tax revenues ...ROSE. Can't say I understand that one, either, but it's a fact. Maybe this is the way to get money back into the treasury.
posted by dwivian at 3:40 PM on January 23, 2002


remember when you were little and they said that Anyone could be President of the United States, and that's what makes this country the greatest?

well, Anyone is in office and it's not so great.
posted by tsarfan at 3:43 PM on January 23, 2002


Where the hell is the link?
posted by techgnollogic at 4:22 PM on January 23, 2002


Found this quote on CNN:

"Federal budget surpluses will dwindle to $2.26 trillion over the next decade and annual deficits will be back for the next two years"

Oh god, not a mere $2.26 trillion in surpluses! In the next 10 years! Oh, the humanity!

Two years of budget deficit! Two of 'em! Aaaaaaaaahgghh!!!!
posted by techgnollogic at 4:28 PM on January 23, 2002


imagine what Bush would have asked for if we had actually done some fighting during these last wars?

he acts like a kid getting a new car for their sweet 16 birthday and wanting a new one after they return from the mall.
posted by tsarfan at 4:41 PM on January 23, 2002


The 80s sucked, and we had Republican presidents

I don't know what yardstick you're using to make that claim. How did they suck? The decade treated me very well economically; my salary tripled between '83 and '89.

The 90s were a big improvement, and we had Clinton

You seem to be hanging all the blame or credit on the president in office at the time...a bit of an oversimplistic view I think. Neither Clinton or Reagan could've accomplished much of anything without the cooperation of the legislative branch and in both cases, they spent most of their terms working with a congress that sat on the opposite side of the aisle from them. So if the '80s sucked and the '90s ruled, then it was partially because the Democrats helped Ronnie push his trickle-down agenda and the Republican's pushed Clinton to accept a balanced budget that he really didn't want.
posted by MrBaliHai at 7:39 PM on January 23, 2002


"Bush Proposes to Add $48 Billion to Pentagon's Budget Next Year. "

Could part of the Pentagon's budget be going to rebuild the Pentagon?

If no one else remembers, the Pentagon was also hit during the terrorist attack. Part of the Pentagon was destroyed and lives were lost there as well.
posted by SuzySmith at 6:26 AM on January 24, 2002


Democrats helped Ronnie push his trickle-down agenda and the Republican's pushed Clinton to accept a balanced budget that he really didn't want.

All right, pure partisanship! Go ahead! Spin everything in your side's favor! It's so impressive! (For background, non-partisanship would've meant Democrats forced Reagan to temper his trickle-down agenda.)
posted by raysmj at 7:15 AM on January 24, 2002


The 80s sucked, and we had Republican presidents

I don't know what yardstick you're using to make that claim. How did they suck?

um, lets see. wall bangs, moonlighting, basket ball hoop ear rings, those ugly ass gel sandel things, miami vice, t-shirt and blazer look. do i need to go on?
posted by chrisroberts at 7:29 AM on January 24, 2002


chrisroberts: you forgot hair metal, skinny leather ties, the Challenger explosion, "bombing will begin in five minutes", James Watt, and Phil Donohue, among others.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:11 AM on January 24, 2002


Oh god, not a mere $2.26 trillion in surpluses! In the next 10 years! Oh, the humanity!
Two years of budget deficit! Two of 'em!


Errr.... there is this little problem.

I love how its time to celebrate whenever we stop digging our hole deeper... So let's see, now our kids will not only have their social security robbed from them, we're also going to hand them this nice gigantic debt. Thanks Baby Boomers! You guys are great!
posted by badstone at 1:20 PM on January 24, 2002


« Older   |   Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments