Someone smart, explain in easy terms, what Bush's plan cuts back on?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The new plan to reduce the deficeit, what does this plan cut back on exactly?

Please just name a list of the programs and agencies this plan will take money away from.

[mookie2001]

free and reduced lunch and breakfast programs

[Oh, Gee!!]

military spending will be cut

[Oh, Gee!!]

however, the wiretap industry will see an unprecedented rise in earnings and profits

[boutons]

washingtonpost.com

With Cheney's Vote, Senate Passes Budget Bill
Legislation Would Trim $40 Billion Over 5 Years

By William Branigin, Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; 2:54 PM

The Senate narrowly passed a $40 billion budget-cutting bill today, with Vice President Cheney casting the deciding vote after the chamber split 50-50 on the measure.

Taking his seat as president of the Senate after cutting short a trip to the Middle East, Cheney announced he was voting for the legislation, making the final tally 51-50 in favor of passage.

President Bush praised the vote as "a victory for taxpayers, fiscal restraint and responsible budgeting," and he said it would help achieve his goal of cutting the federal deficit in half by 2009. In a statement, he said the bill marked "the first time in nearly a decade that Congress has reduced entitlement spending."

The vote came after Senate Democrats used a last-minute parliamentary objection to force minor changes to the measure, stripping out three small provisions affecting health care policy. The new version now must go back to the House, which passed the legislation Monday 212-206. Although the House is considered sure to pass the bill again, its members would have to be called back to Washington, since most have already gone home for the holidays. Otherwise, final passage could be delayed until early next year.

The budget legislation would trim federal spending growth by nearly $40 billion over the next five years.

( how much have tax-cuts for the rich+corps REDUCED federal revenues and worsened the federal deficit? $40B in 5 years is the cost of about 6 weeks of the Iraq war)

Fearing a close vote, Cheney cut short his Middle East trip yesterday and flew back to Washington overnight after five Republican senators signaled they would vote against the measure, possibly leading to a 50-50 tie.

That turned out to be the case, as the five Republicans joined all 44 Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent to oppose the hard-fought budget bill, which tackles the growth of entitlement programs such Medicaid and Medicare for the first time in nearly a decade.

(what happend to "it's your money"?? The beneficiaries who qualify have paid "their" money in, but they can't get "their" money? Compare with the $15B dubya gifted to energy industry for "research", $15B that will never be accountd for and the research never published)

"The bottom line is, we stood firm and we made tough choices," said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who joined other Republicans in hailing what they called a great, if narrow, victory.

( What's easier that cutting payments to people who have not donated to Santorum's/Repug's coffers?)

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the bill aims to "put some discipline into the fiscal accounts of the federal government." In a final appeal before the vote, he said, "This is the one vote you'll have this year to reduce the rate of growth of the federal government."

(it's bald-faced class warfare. fuck the poor and needy who don't contribute to the Repugs while cutting taxes for rich+corps)

But Democrats argued forcefully that the budget reductions take too much away from the poor and are essentially wiped out by a new round of GOP tax cuts passed earlier this month.

(holy shit. How could the Repugs make such a "mistake" ? )

The bill "robs from the poor to make room for tax giveaways to the wealthiest individuals in the country," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an ideologically driven, extreme, radical budget" that "caters to lobbyists and an elite group of ultraconservative ideologues here in Washington, all at the expense of middle class Americans."

The five maverick Republicans-- Susan M. Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island -- joined James M. Jeffords, an independent from Vermont, and all Senate Democrats in opposing the bill.

The legislation would allow states to impose new fees on Medicaid recipients, cut federal child support enforcement funds, impose new work requirements on state welfare programs and squeeze student lenders.


According to budget experts, the bill would barely dent the federal deficit, cutting less than one-half of 1 percent from an estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years. Opponents said the poor would bear the brunt of the cuts -- especially to Medicaid, child support enforcement and foster care -- whereas original targets for belt-tightening, such as pharmaceutical companies and private insurers, largely escaped sanction.

A House-passed provision, for instance, would have allowed states to establish preferred medication lists for Medicaid, then steer patients to cheaper drugs by charging higher co-payments for medicines off the list. Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) garnered headlines last month by winning an exclusion from the provision for mental health drugs, a boon for one of his state's biggest companies, Eli Lilly. But the final House-Senate compromise eliminated the preferred-drug list provision, even though it maintained a House provision that allows states for the first time to charge poor Medicaid patients co-payments, premiums and deductibles.

Likewise, the compromise eliminated a Senate-passed provision that would have saved the federal government $36 billion over the next decade by eliminating financial incentives to lure managed care companies into Medicare. Under White House pressure, the Senate provision was gutted in the House-Senate compromise.

The heated Senate debate yesterday also focused on complex student loan changes that would save $12.7 billion over five years. Under the provision, student loan interest rates would be locked in at 6.8 percent and could not be refinanced as commercial rates fluctuate. Private lenders would continue to be able to borrow money at a rate guaranteed to generate a profit.

Currently, any time the student loan interest rate is higher than the bank's guaranteed rate, the bank gets to keep the extra profit. Under the budget bill, that windfall would have to be returned to the federal government, a change that should yield $18 billion in savings. The change has strong Democratic advocates, including Sen. Kennedy.

But student groups, higher-education advocates and their allies in Congress say much more of those savings should go toward expanding higher-education assistance or lowering student loan rates, not deficit reduction. "They could give students a lower interest rate, but their choice is to keep interest rates high," said Luke Swarthout of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "They're asking students to pay for tax cuts."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The legislation would allow states to impose new fees on Medicaid recipients, cut federal child support enforcement funds, impose new work requirements on state welfare programs and squeeze student lenders.

the big cutback is on Student College Financial Aid


ahh i finally got the response i was looking for


so, conservative leaders of the nation, why is it you get mad when mookie and i say we are disgusted by rich republicans again?
(also, gtownspur, feel free to bring up the fact that you became republican bc you are mexican)

[mookie2001]

they should be rich enough to afford college and healthcare


thats their problem

[Oh, Gee!!]

they should be rich enough to afford college and healthcare


thats their problem


yeah, those little rugrats. They shoulda chosen better parents

[Nbadan]

yeah, those little rugrats. They shoulda chosen better parents

By 'better' you must mean richer. The administration is changing the way student loans are guaranteed passing those costs on to borrowers (students) who are already shouldering mountainous tuition and university fees. Expected savings are supposed to be around $50 billion over 5 years, but many economists expect the real savings to be much less.

Meanwhile, expect the WH to ask for another supplemental $100-120 billion for military operations and 'cronyism' in Iraq and Afghanistan after the New Year.

[Nbadan]

It took Cheney's tie-breaking vote, but the planned cuts passed on a largely partisan vote...

Dec. 21, 2005, 11:21PM
Tie-breaking Cheney vote saves deficit cuts
Senate returns to the House $39.7 billion plan limiting growth of benefit programs
By DAVID ESPO
Associated Press


WASHINGTON - In the final clashes of a year of partisan conflict, Senate Republicans salvaged a $39.7 billion package of deficit cuts on Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote.

Even Cheney's presence and the 51-50 vote it meant in favor of deficit cuts left the White House and GOP leadership short of final victory on the measure.

Democrats forced a few minor changes in the moments before it passed, enough to require the House to vote again before the measure can go to President Bush for his signature.
(snip)

Democrats said that however it was described, it would fall too harshly on lower-income Americans.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called the GOP legislation "ideologically driven," and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said it was prelude to $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy that Republicans plan to pass next year, a combination he said would increase red ink.
(snip/...)

Chronicle (http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3541437.html)

[SA210]

washingtonpost.com
tackles the growth of entitlement programs such Medicaid and Medicare for the first time in nearly a decade.


essentially wiped out by a new round of GOP tax cuts passed earlier this month.

impose new fees on Medicaid recipients, cut federal child support enforcement funds, impose new work requirements on state welfare programs and squeeze student lenders.


According to budget experts, the bill would barely dent the federal deficit, cutting less than one-half of 1 percent from an estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years. Opponents said the poor would bear the brunt of the cuts -- especially to Medicaid, child support enforcement and foster care -- whereas original targets for belt-tightening, such as pharmaceutical companies and private insurers, largely escaped sanction.

"They're asking students to pay for tax cuts."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Cuts from the poor? I thought Xray said this doesn't happen. No way. :rolleyes

[chode_regulator]

Meanwhile, expect the WH to ask for another supplemental $100-120 billion for military operations and 'cronyism' in Iraq and Afghanistan after the New Year.
thats fine but dont bitch when it comes to light that the military doesnt have the necessary items to protect themselves in war and are FUCKING RUNNING OUT OF AMMO and using weapons and ammo from WWII.
oh yeah, vote payraises in the military. :spin

[mikejones99]

Those are good cuts mostly, maybe it will teach the poor to not have so many kids. They should have an increase on birth control spending? Why do mexicans become republicans?

[SA210]

Why do mexicans become republicans?
ask Gtown

[Nbadan]

According to budget experts, the bill would barely dent the federal deficit, cutting less than one-half of 1 percent from an estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years. Opponents said the poor would bear the brunt of the cuts -- especially to Medicaid, child support enforcement and foster care -- whereas original targets for belt-tightening, such as pharmaceutical companies and private insurers, largely escaped sanction.

Steal from the poor and give to the rich. Something to be proud of this Christmas.

[xrayzebra]

Steal from the poor and give to the rich. Something to be proud of this Christmas.

Please spare me the crocodile tears. Who pays the taxes, not the poor.

[boutons]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bs/2005/bs051226.gif

[SA210]

Please spare me the crocodile tears. Who pays the taxes, not the poor.
That's the Christian way.

[xrayzebra]

That's the Christian way.

Yep, it sure is. God takes care of those who take care of themselves.
He didn't say anything about the people who lived under bridges. Those are
in your area of responsibility. There are those who need "our" care, but not
all those that are getting "our" care. Again, give me a break. You want
to give all the "deserving" care, give it to them, but don't ask the taxpayers
to foot the bill. You do that!

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_guitar_seal.jpg

[2centsworth]

they should be rich enough to afford college and healthcare


thats their problem
I worked weekends and paid my own way through college. My parents did pay crap.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I worked weekends and paid my own way through college. My parents did pay crap.


so did I. I still have sympathy

[boutons_]

The budgets cuts back on anything that isn't protected by politicians who have been purchased by SIGs and PACs and corps.

======================

washingtonpost.com

When the Cutting Is Corrupted

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005; A25

With indicted superlobbyist Jack Abramoff reportedly ready to cooperate with prosecutors and his partner, Michael Scanlon, already singing, 2006 is expected to be the year of congressional scandals.

Lord knows, a housecleaning in the Capitol is definitely in order. But the Abramoff scandal is just part of the corruption of our political system. There is another level of special-interest influence that cannot be handled by prosecutors: Only the voters can render a judgment on a politics of favoritism that has created a new Gilded Age. It's clear that the national government has placed itself squarely on the side of the wealthy, the privileged and the connected.

Rarely does a single action by Congress serve as so powerful an example of how the system is working. The recent budget bill, which squeaked through the House and Senate just before Christmas, is a road map of insider dealing. It shows that when choices have to be made, the interests of the poor and the middle class fall before the wishes of interest groups with powerful lobbies and awesome piles of campaign money to distribute.

Republican majorities in the Senate and House insisted that they wanted to cut the federal budget. But the Senate and House offered competing plans for achieving savings. When it came time to meld the two proposals, almost every choice congressional leaders made favored the interest groups.

Consider federal health programs. The House bill proposed substantial cuts for Medicaid beneficiaries, but the Senate bill -- partly because of pressure from moderate Republicans -- did not include those cuts. Instead, the Senate proposed to save taxpayer money by eliminating a $10 billion fund to encourage regional preferred-provider organizations, known as PPOs, to participate in the Medicare program. It also sought more rebates to the federal government from drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid.

Note the difference: Instead of imposing cuts on the poor, the Senate sought savings from corporate interests. Surprise, surprise: The final bill dropped the $10 billion cut to the PPOs and most of the rebate demands on drug manufacturers. Instead, the agreement hammered Medicaid recipients with $16 billion in gross cuts over the next decade. (The net cuts are lower because of new Medicaid spending, partly to help cover the scattered victims of Hurricane Katrina.)

The Medicaid cuts include increased co-payments and premiums on low-income Americans, and the budget assumes savings because fewer poor people will visit the doctor. As Kevin Freking of the Associated Press reported: "The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that such increases would lead many poor people to forgo health care or not to enroll in Medicaid at all -- contributing to some of the $4.8 billion in Medicaid savings envisioned over the next five years."

Ah, say their defenders, but these cuts will be good for poor people. According to the New York Times, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.), an architect of the Medicaid proposals, said the higher co-payments were needed to "encourage personal responsibility" among low-income people. Spoken like a congressman who never has to worry about his taxpayer-provided health coverage.

And that is just one instance among many of corporate interests being shielded from cuts, while child support enforcement and foster care programs were sliced. Shortly before the bill went to the House floor, Republican leaders, at the insistence of a group of GOP lawmakers from Ohio, dropped a $1.9 billion cut that would have changed Medicare payments to oxygen equipment manufacturers. The main beneficiary of this change was Invacare Corp. of Elyria, Ohio.

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) opposed the original, milder Senate budget bill but turned around and voted for the final, harsher bill. According to Congress Daily, Coleman backed the final budget "after negotiators took out cuts affecting his state's sugar beet growers." Coleman told the paper: "Karl Rove called me and asked what I wanted. A few hours later it was out of the bill."

The good news is that this budget is not law yet. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) used a clever procedural maneuver to force it back to the House for one more vote next year.

When this 774-page behemoth hit the House floor shortly after 1 a.m. on Dec. 19, many members were not fully aware of what was in it. Now that they know, maybe some of the moderate Republicans who caved to their leadership and voted for it will save their party's honor by killing this special-interest mess. If I may borrow from Mr. Barton, doing so would definitely "encourage personal responsibility" among Republican leaders.

[email protected]

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[mookie2001]

I worked weekends and paid my own way through college. My parents did pay crap.
and

[boutons_]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tt/2005/tt051225.gif

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bs/2005/bs051227.gif

[boutons_]

So now the conservatives/Repugs are going after traumatized vets as Reaganesque "welfare kings and queens".

Of course, none of these conservatives/Repugs have any kids figting in Iraq in need of post-war assistance, nor have any of their companies ever taken a single $ of corporate welfare or no-bid, high-margin govt/military contracts.

====================================

A Political Debate On Stress Disorder

As Claims Rise, VA Takes Stock

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, December 27, 2005; A01

The spiraling cost of post-traumatic stress disorder among war veterans has triggered a politically charged debate and ignited fears that the government is trying to limit expensive benefits for emotionally scarred troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the past five years, the number of veterans receiving compensation for the disorder commonly called PTSD has grown nearly seven times as fast as the number receiving benefits for disabilities in general, according to a report this year by the inspector general of the Department of Veterans Affairs. A total of 215,871 veterans received PTSD benefit payments last year at a cost of $4.3 billion, up from $1.7 billion in 1999 -- a jump of more than 150 percent.

Experts say the sharp increase does not begin to factor in the potential impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the increase is largely the result of Vietnam War vets seeking treatment decades after their combat experiences. Facing a budget crunch, experts within and outside the Veterans Affairs Department are raising concerns about fraudulent claims, wondering whether the structure of government benefits discourages healing, and even questioning the utility and objectivity of the diagnosis itself.

"On the one hand, it is good that people are reaching out for help," said Jeff Schrade, communications director for the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. "At the same time, as more people reach out for help, it squeezes the budget further."

Among the issues being discussed, he said, was whether veterans who show signs of recovery should continue to receive disability compensation: "Whether anyone has the political courage to cut them off -- I don't know that Congress has that will, but we'll see."

Much of the debate is taking place out of public sight, including an internal VA meeting in Philadelphia this month. The department has also been in negotiations with the Institute of Medicine over a review of the "utility and objectiveness" of PTSD diagnostic criteria and the validity of screening techniques, a process that could have profound implications for returning soldiers.

The growing national debate over the Iraq war has changed the nature of the discussion over PTSD, some participants said. "It has become a pro-war-versus-antiwar issue," said one VA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because politics is not supposed to enter the debate. "If we show that PTSD is prevalent and severe, that becomes one more little reason we should stop waging war. If, on the other hand, PTSD rates are low . . . that is convenient for the Bush administration."

As to whether budget issues and politics are playing a role in the agency's review of PTSD diagnosis and treatment, VA spokesman Scott Hogenson said: "The debate is over how to provide the best medical services possible for veterans."

People with PTSD have paralyzing memories of traumatic episodes they experienced or witnessed, a range of emotional problems, and significant impairments in day-to-day functioning. Underlying the political and budget issues, many experts acknowledged, is a broader scientific debate over how best to diagnose trauma-related pathology, what the goal of treatment should be -- even what constitutes trauma.

Harvard psychologist Richard J. McNally argues that the diagnosis equates sexual abuse, car accidents and concentration camps, when they are entirely different experiences: A PTSD diagnosis has become "a way of moral claims-making," he said. "To underscore the reprehensibility of the perpetrator, we say someone has been through a traumatic event."

Chris Frueh, director of the VA clinic in Charleston, S.C., said the department's disability system encourages some veterans to exaggerate symptoms and prolong problems in order to maintain eligibility for benefits.

"We have young men and women coming back from Iraq who are having PTSD and getting the message that this is a disorder they can't be treated for, and they will have to be on disability for the rest of their lives," said Frueh, a professor of public psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina. "My concern about the policies is that they create perverse incentives to stay ill. It is very tough to get better when you are trying to demonstrate how ill you are."

Most veterans whom Frueh treats for PTSD are seeking disability compensation, he said. Veterans Affairs uses a sliding scale; veterans who are granted 100 percent disability status receive payments starting at around $2,300 a month. The VA inspector general's report found that benefit payments varied widely in states and said that was because VA centers in some states are more likely to grant veterans 100 percent disability.

Psychiatrist Sally Satel, who is affiliated with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said an underground network advises veterans where to go for the best chance of being declared disabled. The institute organized a recent meeting to discuss PTSD among veterans.

Once veterans are declared disabled, they retain that status indefinitely, Frueh and Satel said. The system creates an adversarial relationship between doctors and patients, in which veterans sometimes take legal action if doctors decline to diagnose PTSD, Frueh said. The clinician added that some patients who really need help never get it because they are unwilling to undergo the lengthy process of qualifying for disability benefits, which often requires them to repeatedly revisit the painful episodes they experienced.

The concern by Frueh and Satel about overdiagnosis and fraud -- what researchers call "false positives" -- has drawn the ire of veterans groups and many other mental health experts.

A far bigger problem is the many veterans who seek help but do not get it or who never seek help, a number of experts said. Studies have shown that large numbers of veterans with PTSD never seek treatment, possibly because of the stigma surrounding mental illness.

"There are periodic false positives, but there are also a lot of false negatives out there," said Terence M. Keane, one of the nation's best-known PTSD researchers, who cited a 1988 study on the numbers of veterans who do not get treatment. "Less than one-fourth of people with combat-related PTSD have used VA-related services."

Larry Scott, who runs the clearinghouse http://www.vawatchdog.org/ , said conservative groups are trying to cut VA disability programs by unfairly comparing them to welfare.

Compensating people for disabilities is a cost of war, he said: "Veterans benefits are like workmen's comp. You went to war. You were injured. Either your body or your mind was injured, and that prevents you from doing certain duties and you are compensated for that."

Scott said Veterans Affairs' objectives were made clear in the department's request to the Institute of Medicine for a $1.3 million study to review how PTSD is diagnosed and treated. Among other things, the department asked the institute -- a branch of the National Academies chartered by Congress to advise the government on science policy -- to review the American Psychiatric Association's criteria for diagnosing PTSD. Effectively, Scott said, Veterans Affairs was trying to get one scientific organization to second-guess another.

PTSD experts summoned to Philadelphia for the two-day internal "expert panel" meeting were asked to discuss "evidence regarding validity, reliability, and feasibility" of the department's PTSD assessment and treatment practices, according to an e-mail invitation obtained by The Washington Post. The goal, the e-mail added, is "to improve clinical exams used to help determine benefit payments for veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder."

"What they are trying to do is figure out a way not to diagnose vets with PTSD," said Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, a veterans advocacy group. "It's like telling a patient with cancer, 'if we tell you, you don't have cancer, then you won't suffer from cancer.' "

Hogenson, the VA spokesman, said the department is not seeking to overturn the established psychiatric criteria for diagnosing PTSD.

"We are reviewing the utility and the objectivity of the criteria . . . and are commenting on the screening instruments used by VA," he said. "We want to make sure what we do for screening comports with the latest information out there."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_corporatecontributors.jpg

[gtownspur]

The govt is way overdue in slashing spending. There will be cuts across the board on social programs.


Bush has three options.

1.Cut social spending(angering Mother Theresa210, boutons, NbaDan)

2.Cut military spending(angering vets, republicans, and 70 percent of the country)

3.Or raise taxes(anger republicans, and somehow still anger NbaDan)


Welfare program growth should be cut. Whether it be in administration, or benefits. Welfare should slowly be done away with. The Union was not founded to be a nanny state.

The military should cut spending on useless bases, and other cold war programs that do not fit our needs.

[SA210]

^^^ Why are you still rambling stupdity? Your nothin but a joke. At best.

[jochhejaam]

^^^ Why are you still rambling stupdity? Your nothin but a joke. At best.
What's the point in throwing an insult at someone who was commenting on the thread topic? Is that all you've got?

You complained to Kori the other day that "he started it", why don't you just drop the immature name calling? Must be the "Christian" thing to do, huh?

I know, "he started it".
Grow up!

[Oh, Gee!!]

STFU, bitch!

[jochhejaam]

STFU, bitch!
Now that's more like it, why can't sa210 post maturely like you do?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Now that's more like it, why can't sa210 post maturely like you do?


Cuz I'm an OG and he's still a young-G. Nevertheless, 210 is right; Gtown is a closet case.

[SA210]

What's the point in throwing an insult at someone who was commenting on the thread topic? Is that all you've got?Of course u didn't see his insult to me, and that's why I responded. Well, you share his pathetic views, no wonder.


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/6thsense.jpg

[JoeChalupa]

Amount Congress cut from federal home heating assistance for low-income households: $2 billion

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_no_missionaccomplished.jpg