Bush plans to halve deficit by 2009

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He hasn't veto'd a single bill from Congress.

No duh. They're both Republican. By rules common to both parties, the White House sets the agenda.

Presidents usually have vetoes, even if their own party controls Congress.

[Wakie]

He hasn't veto'd a single bill from Congress.

No duh. They're both Republican. By rules common to both parties, the White House sets the agenda.

You know he isn't the first President to have a "friendly" Congress but he IS the first President to make it this far without vetoing a single bill!

Bush doesn't set the agenda.  He rolls over for Congress and flops on the ground.

[A18]

Uh, no. Almost none of that stuff would have made it to his desk if he hadn't pushed for it.

[??????????]

Actually I believe Lincoln didn't veteo anything either. For those of you who consider him a legitimate president of course.

[A18]

For those of you who consider him a legitimate president of course.

Alright, now you sound like jFraud. How exactly were 1860 and 1864 stolen?

[A18]

You know he isn't the first President to have a "friendly" Congress but he IS the first President to make it this far without vetoing a single bill!

Thomas Jefferson served two full terms and never vetoed a single bill. Or so says Wikipedia.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You know he isn't the first President to have a "friendly" Congress but he IS the first President to make it this far without vetoing a single bill!

Thomas Jefferson served two full terms and never vetoed a single bill. Or so says Wikipedia.

How about a comparison of how many bills passed then vs. now?

[The Duke]

In Jefferson's day, the main reason vetos happenned were that a bill was deemd unconstitutional.  Only under Andrew Jackson did the veto become a legislative weapon.

[A18]

Well, it would appear that Washington's second veto was not on constitutional grounds.

Where did you read that the transition occured under Jackson? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to read more about it.

Anyway, Lincoln vetoed a total of six bills. Polk vetoed three. They aren't generally considered failure presidents who accomplished nothing.

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, it was $567.4 billion last year.
So he plans to cut it by over $280 billion? How? More tax cuts? More Pell Grants?

You can listen to what he says, or you can look at his actions for the last 4 years. This guy turned an $86.3 billion surplus in 2000 into an $567.4 billion deficit in 2004 in just 4 years.

Yes, fiscal matters haven't exactly been Bush's and the GOP-controlled Congress' strong suit. It will take fiscally responsible Democrats to put the deficit right, who the GOP have the audacity to call "tax and spenders"

I know a constitutional amendment, which decrees that Congress must balance the budget is pretty unfeasible (given the potential damaging impact of "unforeseen" circumstances) - but shouldn't there be a limit?

Dave

[A18]

If the Democrats hadn't spent the last four years talking about how Bush was NOT SPENDING ENOUGH on virtually EVERYTHING from health care to education, may they'd have some room to talk about deficits. But they did, so they don't.

A constitutional amendment requiring balanced budgets is a noble idea with terrible consequences.

What we need is a constitutional amendment limiting the percentage of GDP the federal government is allowed to control.

[David S]

Interesting things to note;
-By an odd coincidence 2009 is the year Bush leaves office.
- In another thread Opebo was kind enough to post a link to the CBO's projections on spending and deficits. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0 Table 3 shows deficits reaching 20% of GDP by 2075. Figure 2 shows Federal government spending growing from less than 20% of GDP today to almost 40% of GDP by 2075. Most of the increase is fueled by growth in Medicare, Medicaid, and interest. OK 2075 is a long way off. I'll be long since deceased by then and even the youngest forum members will be retired. But what a mess we'll leave for our children and grandchildren.

[opebo]

Interesting things to note;
-By an odd coincidence 2009 is the year Bush leaves office.
- In another thread Opebo was kind enough to post a link to the CBO's projections on spending and deficits. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0 Table 3 shows deficits reaching 20% of GDP by 2075. Figure 2 shows Federal government spending growing from less than 20% of GDP today to almost 40% of GDP by 2075. Most of the increase is fueled by growth in Medicare, Medicaid, and interest. OK 2075 is a long way off. I'll be long since deceased by then and even the youngest forum members will be retired. But what a mess we'll leave for our children and grandchildren.

If you'll look at those figures again you'll see that they're estimating no increase in federal revenues from 2000 to 2075!

[David S]

Interesting things to note;
-By an odd coincidence 2009 is the year Bush leaves office.
- In another thread Opebo was kind enough to post a link to the CBO's projections on spending and deficits. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0 Table 3 shows deficits reaching 20% of GDP by 2075. Figure 2 shows Federal government spending growing from less than 20% of GDP today to almost 40% of GDP by 2075. Most of the increase is fueled by growth in Medicare, Medicaid, and interest. OK 2075 is a long way off. I'll be long since deceased by then and even the youngest forum members will be retired. But what a mess we'll leave for our children and grandchildren.

If you'll look at those figures again you'll see that they're estimating no increase in federal revenues from 2000 to 2075!

They are showing revenues flat as a percentage of GDP. That means revenues will increase at the same rate as the GDP. Of course if you want to increase taxes by turning over a portion of your inheritance or giving government a larger portion of your income that would alter the results. Do you want to do that?

[The Duke]

Well, it would appear that Washington's second veto was not on constitutional grounds.

Where did you read that the transition occured under Jackson? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to read more about it.

Anyway, Lincoln vetoed a total of six bills. Polk vetoed three. They aren't generally considered failure presidents who accomplished nothing.

Like I said, constitutional grounds used to be the main reason, but certainly not the only one.   Policy vetoes were very rare then, but they're the norm now.

I leanred that the transition came under Jackson in history class in High School.