Bush signs bill cutting student loans, Medicare

[Chicky 0]

Bush: Budget will spur growth, rein in spending

Wednesday, February 8, 2006; Posted: 7:23 p.m. EST (00:23 GMT)

story.bush.01.jpg

President Bush says his budget for 2007 will eliminate federal programs that are underperforming.

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday talked up his budget on a trip to New Hampshire, hours before signing a bill he says is a major step toward cutting the nation's deficit in half by 2009.

The president said his fiscal year 2007 budget will promote economic growth by keeping taxes low, will restrain government spending and will eliminate federal programs that don't produce results.

"I look behind the numbers and see the quality-of-life issues," Bush told a gathering of the Business and Industry Association.

"Those of us who put it together really did see the human dimension behind the budgeting."

Bush touted some numbers he said indicate the health of the nation's economy, including 3.5 percent economic growth last year, the highest rate of home ownership in history and an addition of 4.7 million jobs in the past two years.

"In spite of the numbers and the economic growth there is uncertainty. Some of the uncertainty comes as a result of competition from places like India and China," Bush said.

"The temptation with uncertainty and competition is to say 'We can't compete.' ... If you look at the history of the United States, the economic history, there have been periods of protectionism and isolationism in the hopes that that will lead to a better lifestyle for our citizens."

The president warned against such actions, saying he strongly rejects the notion of becoming a protectionist nation.

"I don't think this country ought to fear the future; I don't think we ought to fear competition. I know we ought to shape the future with good policies out of Washington, D.C., and make sure we're the pre-eminent economy in the world," he said.

After returning to the White House from New Hampshire, the president signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which makes $39 billion in cuts to student loan subsidies, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies and other programs. (House passes cuts to Medicaid, student loans)

"Spending restraints means making difficult choices, yet making those choices is what the American people sent us to Washington to do," the president said before signing the legislation.

Bush's budget, which was released Monday, came in at $2.8 trillion and included increases in military and homeland security spending while cutting money for Medicare and other non-defense programs.

The White House expects the deficit to climb to $400 billion in fiscal 2006, but administration officials said Bush still hopes to reduce the flow of red ink to $260 billion a year by the end of his term.

The budget's cuts to Medicare and education programs have been criticized by a bipartisan group of legislators. (Full story)

Repeating themes from his January State of the Union speech, the president again urged the Senate to pass liability legislation and said the country needs to cut its dependence on oil from "unstable parts of the world."

He also called on Congress to make permanent the tax cuts he introduced in his first term in office.

"There's a direct correlation between cutting taxes on the capital gains and dividends, and quality of life all across America," Bush said.

He said his budget also will cut discretionary spending not related to homeland security or defense, and will trim $14 billion from federal programs that aren't performing well.

Those results are demonstrated on a new Web site called www.expectmore.govexternal link, Bush said. On it, there are descriptions of programs that didn't show results or that proved to be inefficient.

The president said his budget reintroduces "fiscal sanity" and will help the American economy continue to grow.

"You can't be the pre-eminent economy of the world if your economy doesn't grow," Bush said.

After returning to the White House from New Hampshire, the president signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which makes $39 billion in cuts to student loan subsidies, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies and other programs. (House passes cuts to Medicaid, student loans)

Bush's budget, which was released Monday, came in at $2.8 trillion and included increases in military and homeland security spending while cutting money for Medicare and other non-defense programs.

He said his budget also will cut discretionary spending not related to homeland security or defense, and will trim $14 billion from federal programs that aren't performing well.

Of course, I mean it isn't important to learn how to read, or that American has health care, its about protecting people from terrorists. WELL THE TERRORISTS LIVE HERE and they seem to be our government. I'm so mad at this. I'm sure more people will die in America from lack of health care and being on the streets instead of being in school then will die by the hands of terrorists. Eventually he'll have no one to defend with all his Homeland Security. One of the programs that wasn't performing was grants for child abuse prevention (go to www.expectmore.gov to see programs that he says are performing and which ones are not)

[I'm Gone 60]

Cuts 40 billion over 5 years with the annual budget for 2007 to be $2.8 trillion, so that 40 billion out of 14 trillion.

Edited February 9, 2006 by mdyoung

[SteveNanik 0]

Bush is so out of touch with america its terrible! he is out of touch with the world

[I'm Gone 60]

Bush is so out of touch with america its terrible! he is out of touch with the world

I would say, should be about 400 billion over 5 years.

[I'm Gone 60]

Bogus Rights

by Walter E. Williams

Posted Feb 08, 2006

Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing? Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights? In order to have any hope of coherently answering these questions, we have to decide what is a right. The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.

Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights. If it is said that a person has rights to medical care, food and housing, and has no means of paying, how does he enjoy them? There's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy who provides them. You say, "The Congress provides for those rights." Not quite. Congress does not have any resources of its very own. The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American. So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.

If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.

Philosopher John Locke's vision of natural law guided the founders of our nation. Our Declaration of Independence expresses that vision, declaring, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government.

Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God. I'm guessing that when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure he didn't mean "thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress."

[Chicky 0]

While some people may not like what the author of the article calls "stealing" I don't mind my tax dollars funding health care etc for people who really need it. Would you if you were someone with health care and a job feel the same way if you suddenly jost your job, your house was reposessed etc? Would you feel you didn't deserve health care for you and your children? Would you think you didn't have a right to eat, or have shelter and just let your family starve? That's what I ask myself, and no, I wouldn't feel that way nor do I think anyone would. Why is everyone all about themselves, you are taking my money, its a waste helping other people, I earned that money I shouldn't have to have my money pay for anything but things that benefit my family. I guess I don't get it. Yes people abuse the system, and that I don't agree with, people should try to help themselves by getting a job, and becoming self sufficient, but sometimes that can take time, why is it so bad to help someone get on their feet so that they become what we like to call "a productive member of society" Isn't it better than letting them wallow at the bottom, and actually steal from your house to get money in order to survive or become so jaded and hateful against people who have what they want that they murder?

We don't have to play alpha dog and survival of the fittest I'd say there is more than enough to go around for everyone. Unfortunately our government has reverse Robin Hood syndrome. I don't know if the article you posted is really how you feel mdyoung or you just posted it as an opposing view but that's what I have to say about the article.

[I'm Gone 60]

I don't know if the article you posted is really how you feel mdyoung or you just posted it as an opposing view but that's what I have to say about the article.

First I feel that the 40 billion cut out of 14 trillion is a drop in the bucket. To reduce it down to numbers people can get their head around, it's equal to $40.00 out of $14,000.00. Bush is not exactly cutting the budget to the bone,

Yes, I do feel that a lot of what the Federal government does it has no right to spend my money on. I work for the Federal government and I would be all for an across the board freeze on all Federal program spending, which would mean no raise for me and is a lot more than $40.00.

Edited February 9, 2006 by mdyoung

[Chicky 0]

I agree that they spend a lot of money on stuff that they shouldn't spend money on, and I agree he isn't really doing much cutting, but the programs and funds he is cutting go to something he doesn't need to spend more money on.

Like, how much money do we waste on NASA? Billions of dollars every year. While space travel is interesting shouldn't we be more worried about the state of the planet we live on now instead of exploring new frontiers? I'd say once we are once again in the black (if that ever happens) THEN we could worry about spending a billion dollars on a robot that will last a week on Mars and tell us what we already know, that it's uninhabitable by humans and there are no life forms that we can see living there. We could also stop fighting a pointless war that we are spending billions of dollars on. If Jesus couldn't create peace in the Middle East what makes us think we can?

No, but instead we cut costs on things that are important, like education. *sigh* Its cool that you'd say no to a raise though

Edited February 9, 2006 by Chicky

[Scott & Lai 12]

Bogus Rights

by Walter E. Williams

Posted Feb 08, 2006

Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing? Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights? In order to have any hope of coherently answering these questions, we have to decide what is a right. The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.

Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights. If it is said that a person has rights to medical care, food and housing, and has no means of paying, how does he enjoy them? There's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy who provides them. You say, "The Congress provides for those rights." Not quite. Congress does not have any resources of its very own. The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American. So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.

If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.

Philosopher John Locke's vision of natural law guided the founders of our nation. Our Declaration of Independence expresses that vision, declaring, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government.

Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God. I'm guessing that when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure he didn't mean "thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress."

Walter Williams ROCKS

[Jaylen Brit 0]

Quote: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare (note: in this instance meaning health happiness, prosperity and wellbeing), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

(Italics and bold text are mine)

Guess where thats from?

So..we can only have welfare if we can afford it? Guess they missed that part out of the Constitution.

And I wonder if he knows what the result of poor education can be - usually its malcontentment and sows seeds of an underclass..and underclasses have been known to overthrow govts if they get big enough. There goes 'domestic tranquility' as well

And who will run and staff big businesses in order to compete with other nations if today's low wage earners who have children won't be educated?

Just a point.

Edited February 9, 2006 by Jaylen Brit

[desert_fox 32]

Bush can only sign bills passed by Congress.

If they eliminated some under performing programs.....good for them!!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Cuts 40 billion over 5 years with the annual budget for 2007 to be $2.8 trillion, so that 40 billion out of 14 trillion.

Or almost 0.3% assumed that spending will remain flat which we know it won't.

The issue I have with the cuts is the messed-up priorities. The buck you save on health care today will cost you two bucks down the road. Likewise on education and other spending that would be an investment. Instead, billions are pumped into and wasted on the largest ever Presidential PR campaign aka Homeland Security. Homeland Security my #######...

[britbird 4]

He really is a pecker.

A better educated, more healthy workforce is a more productive workforce. When will people get this through their heads! It's not a case of being conservative or liberal, it's a case of being long term and smart in view.

Urg. We're just going to end up with a nation full of assclowns.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Bush is so out of touch with america its terrible! he is out of touch with the world

Have some more koolaid!

While some people may not like what the author of the article calls "stealing" I don't mind my tax dollars funding health care etc for people who really need it. Would you if you were someone with health care and a job feel the same way if you suddenly jost your job, your house was reposessed etc? Would you feel you didn't deserve health care for you and your children? Would you think you didn't have a right to eat, or have shelter and just let your family starve? That's what I ask myself, and no, I wouldn't feel that way nor do I think anyone would. Why is everyone all about themselves, you are taking my money, its a waste helping other people, I earned that money I shouldn't have to have my money pay for anything but things that benefit my family. I guess I don't get it. Yes people abuse the system, and that I don't agree with, people should try to help themselves by getting a job, and becoming self sufficient, but sometimes that can take time, why is it so bad to help someone get on their feet so that they become what we like to call "a productive member of society" Isn't it better than letting them wallow at the bottom, and actually steal from your house to get money in order to survive or become so jaded and hateful against people who have what they want that they murder?

We don't have to play alpha dog and survival of the fittest I'd say there is more than enough to go around for everyone. Unfortunately our government has reverse Robin Hood syndrome. I don't know if the article you posted is really how you feel mdyoung or you just posted it as an opposing view but that's what I have to say about the article.

If you dont mind paying for other peoples healthcare, nobody is stopping you! give 10% of your pay!

Bush can only sign bills passed by Congress.

If they eliminated some under performing programs.....good for them!!!

Could'nt agree more!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush can only sign bills passed by Congress.

If they eliminated some under performing programs.....good for them!!!

It ain't about performance, fox. Else, they'd slash various aspects of homeland security which clearly ain't performing well. Of course, that underperformer along with the 1/2 trillion - 2 trillion failure in Iraq (depending on what you take into the long-term calculation) are the only thing the administration has going for them. Well, the latter is not really working for them anymore.