Bush didn't make too much of the veto threat issued in his name, instead thanking the Senate for the cuts to health care programs for the elderly, poor and disabled while leaving food stamps untouched.
"Today, the Senate took an important step forward in cutting the deficit," Bush said in a statement from Mar del Plata, Argentina, where he is attending a conference. "Congress needs to send me a spending-reduction package this year to keep us on track to cutting the deficit in half."
If you were serious about cutting the deficit, Mr. President, you wouldn't be spending billions in Iraq you fucking fucktard. Oh, and the veto threat? It's because Congress was considering cutting subsidies to insurance companies. What the fuck is going on in America?
And if you were keeping score, here's what this mean-spirited budget would accomplish:
The Senate bill is estimated to trim $36 billion, or 2 percent, from budget deficits forecast at $1.6 trillion over five years. The cuts total $6 billion for the plan's first year, with deficits predicted to exceed $300 billion.
Can you say drop in a bucket? The well-kept media, by the way, bury this news deep in their reports, if they report it at all. It would be interesting to survey U.S. citizens to see how they think budget dollars are divided up. I'm willing to bet most of them would think that cutting welfare entirely would balance the budget or create huge surpluses. Fucking morons.
7 comments:
Taking food from children will certainly provide the cash to kill others in another country.
I'm going out of my mind, MA. I don't know what to say about it all -- maybe people are wising up. The Wash Post reports that 58% of those polled questioned his integrity -- which I think is a more damning conclusion than approval ratings.
If you look at the budget we are fucked. If you look at what the budget is failing to officially account for, I bet you would find that we are fuckfuck doublefucked. I cant say with authority because I havent done any indepth research but I can say ffDf with a fair amount of confidence.
I Bill Maher the other night where Scarborough was saying how if you look back in history, many of what are now considered great presidents (i.e. Reagan) had low approval ratings at this point in their terms. That one day we will all look back on this and say how great a President Bush was and how much he accomplished.
I wonder which of Bush's accomplishments we will look back on first?
Getting the world to hate/fear us? Engaging in a war on terrorism and WMD with no true proof? Indictments of several high ranking officials? "Balancing" the budget? War crimes/human rights issues? Dividing the country?
Hmm...so much to choose from!
*I caught/watched Bill Maher
The problem with scarborough's idea is that history hasn't been kind to Reagan. Only public opinion has. Reagan was a disaster for this country, an addled actor whose economic policies led us into huge deficits and stagnating interest rates (how would you like to take out a house loan at 18% interest?), whose major military accomplishments were invading a tiny island and arming Saddam Hussein with conventional and chemical weapons.
History will record Reagan in the bottom half of Presidents. In the modern era (let's say 1950 to present), he'll only be better than Bush II -- even Carter and Nixon will beat him out. I'm not counting the accidental president, Ford.
Post a Comment