# SPending cuts



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Never. It just isn't going to happen. ..

President Bush's budget for fiscal year 2006 included cuts to Medicaid (welfare for states,) community development and school aid. The cuts were miniscule. Spending in these areas had been growing at record rates for the first four years of the Bush administration. Now cuts are proposed that amount to less than one-half of one percent in some cases, and only cuts in projected spending increases in others ... and the Senate, the Republican controlled Senate, just couldn't go along. The Senate passed a $2.6 trillion budget yesterday that removed the cuts. The budget was approved by a vote of 51 to 49.

This just goes to show you that when it comes to spending by the Imperial Federal Government in this country, we have reached a point where there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Each wants to spend essentially the same amount of money, neither will cut entitlements and both have absolutely no political will to ever balance the current budget. Both sides want big government. Both sides want government to grow. We've reached government critical mass, and there will be no turning back.

On the plus side, the Senate did approve some additional tax cuts. *That is apparently the only way to ultimately cut spending: starve the beast. *


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Thats odd, I can remember just a half decade ago when we had a national surplus. Imagine that. Apparently to cut spending we have to ruin government and the programs who help our helpless and needy in this country.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Thats why I am a RepliCRATE, in other words *independent*. I just don't know how anyone can run against these two POWERFUL parties. I think the only way to make a change in the laws/spending would be to get more independents in the process. :soapbox:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Look at the Libertarian party


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

ej4prmc
I agree, but I can see no way for a third party to get a start. Russia has one good idea. As many people as wish can run. After that election there is a face of between the top two. Old big ears Ross Perot would not have put Clinton in office under the Russian election rules. At least that way you actually get the person most Americans want. This would be the only way for a third party to stand a chance. Of course both parties would really resist that type of change.


----------

