Bush slashes aid to the poor to boost Iraq war chest

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2007/02/07/2003347976

BUDGET: Although the bill for the Iraq conflict is approaching the cost of the Vietnam war, Bush proposed a US$78 billion squeeze on medical care for the poor and elderly

THE GUARDIAN, WASHINGTON
Wednesday, Feb 07, 2007, Page 1

US President George W. Bush is proposing to slash medical care for the poor and elderly to meet the soaring cost of the Iraq war.

Bush's US$2.9 trillion budget, sent to Congress on Monday, includes US$100 billion extra for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for this year, on top of US$70 billion already allocated by Congress and US$141.7 billion next year. He is planning an 11.3 percent increase for the Pentagon. Spending on the Iraq war is destined to top the total cost of the 13-year war in Vietnam.

The rise in military spending will be paid for by a squeeze on domestic programs, including US$66 billion in cuts over five years to Medicare, the healthcare scheme for the elderly, and US$12 billion from the Medicaid healthcare scheme for the poor.

Bush said: "Today we submit a budget to the United States Congress that shows we can balance the budget in five years without raising taxes ... Our priority is to protect the American people. And our priority is to make sure our troops have what it takes to do their jobs."

[ninkasi]

1. I'm getting older, so my memory is not what it used to be

For this reason, I would truly like for the right wing fundies who voted for Dubya to point out to me the verses in the Bible where Jesus preached in favor of starving the hungry, abandoning the elderly, and looking down on the poor, and giving money instead, to make war. Since they are so adamant about slashing social safety nets, I can only assume that there is a precedent in the book they wish to make the law of the land.

Some place in their holy texts, there must be chapters and verses where Jesus preached to take from the poor, the orphan, the widows, and the elderly, and to give their mites to the already wealthy. Somewhere, there has to be the words of Christ, preaching hatred, and vengeance, and grinding the downtrodden even further into the dust.

I have read large portions of the Bible, and can only conclude that there must have been two different men who were called Jesus of Nazareth. One was a gentle, peace loving, people loving, compassionate man, who preached the Sermon on the Mount. The other, I have not been able to find. It must be in some hidden passages that I've not discovered yet.

The harsh passages that the current fundies love to quote are all in either the Old Testament, or are are writings of Paul, who never met Jesus the man, and who seemed to have some serious issues of his own. The Jesus who said that it is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to get into Heaven, must not have been a free market CEO or Republican.

This budget is an atrocity. It is against all of the reasons given in the Declaration of Independence, for us to break away from the tyranny of an insane King George. We have another George now, insane as well, but with far, far more power. Our Founding Fathers gave us a blueprint, a way to peacefully remove a man like this from office. I believe that the people of this country, the majority, at least, have the will to do so. It's now up to the men and women we voted into office to carry out our wishes.

We did not vote for endless war, and the impoverishment of the most vulnerable of us. Neither did we vote for a government which is even now planning another war, and which is willing to ship off even more of our jobs, and import more workers to take jobs away from our own citizens. Enough. Impeachment now. None of us should be willing to let even more of our fellow citizens sink into poverty and despair.

[azurnoir]

2. He's flipping the bird

at the country, his approval ratings are low the war is unpopular, so he's going to take away Grandma's health care to pay for it.
Like "see what I can do"

[OneBlueSky]

3. if I recall correctly, one of Bush's professors gave an interview some time back . . .

in which he stated that Bush expressed the opinion in class that being poor was "their own fault," or something like that . . . anyone remember that? . . .

[maddezmom]

4. Weapons that aren't ready dot Bush's war budget

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's proposed war budget includes many high-cost weapons that won't be operational for years, using a funding request aimed at supporting the troops to seek money for some of the Pentagon's favorite projects.

The president's war package seeks $400 million this year alone to fund a pair of F-35 fighters, even though the new model of plane won't be ready for combat until at least 2010. It also contains $74 million to begin designing a spy plane that won't be tested for two years.

In the war budget, the Pentagon listed the planes among the costs of "reconstituting the force" -- that is, replacing equipment lost in battle. The administration requested more than $51 billion in such replacement spending for the rest of this year and next. In 2005, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the price tag for replacing equipment lost in Iraq would be no more than $8 billion each year.

The war has escalated since the CBO estimate, but analysts say Bush's request strikes them as disproportionately high.

"There are a number of reasons to be suspicious" that programs requested as war spending may not go to the war, said Steve Kosiak , a defense budget specialist at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. "Reconstitution costs have really jumped. That's a big question mark."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/02/08/weapons_that_arent_ready_dot_bushs_war_budget/