A Budget That Leaves Millions Behind?
86310
I don't know about the newsletter but the statement on the budget on her website intead bashes tax cuts for the oil companies and other corporate loopholes. Now I mat not agree wth how Hillary wants to spend our money. But I sure don't believe that any part of the Billions of dollars of tax cuts and excess profits of the oil companies is going to trickle down into my pocket.\n\nIn detailing the devastating budget cuts, Senator Clinton noted the irony of the majority’s willingness to finance corporate tax breaks while taking a budget axe to programs critical to working families.\n\n“Consider this, the $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil companies contained in the Energy Bill, one in a series of irresponsible corporate-tax giveaways, would cover the health care costs of an additional 1.7 million kids nationwide,” Senator Clinton said. “The Republican majority is also proposing an approximately $700 million cut in food stamps. Simply reinstating the superfund polluter tax, which forces companies that pollute to bear the expense of clean-up instead of average taxpayers, would alone generate $7.3 billion over the next ten years – more than ten times the cost of the food stamp cut.” \n\n“And if we simply took the $18 billion revenue raising package adopted by the Senate in its tax bill – which repeals, among other loopholes, another $4.3 billion tax giveaway to oil companies and cracks down on abusive corporate tax transactions, such as setting up offshore in tax havens like Bermuda to avoid paying U.S. taxes – we would be able to avoid the painful increases in costs to students striving to better themselves through a college education,” Clinton added. “Instead, we are looking at the largest cut to aid in the history of the student loan program. An average student saddled with $17,500 in student loans would pay up to $5,800 in additional payments under the Republican plan. Approximately 472,000 New York students would see an increase in costs.”\n\nClinton concluded by stating, “What the Republican majority has proposed is not what is best for America, because it undermines our long-held tradition of supporting families by providing the tools they need to make American the best it can be. The economic policies of the majority and this Administration defy both arithmetic and reality. It’s time that we go back to a conservative fiscal policy that pays as you go, doesn’t spend what you don’t have, and produces balanced budgets and surpluses that will enable us to prepare for the future. And it’s time that we return to policies that truly value all American families.”
656764
Of course, and taxes are too low right now. We dont have enough resources to pay for everything...\n\nI would fund the federal government the most because disasters dont understand borders
699891
How about we cut elsewhere like....\n\n- Subsidies to industry/agri-business  (tobacco, corn, wool, mohair, etc.)\n- Foreign Aid\n- Kill all pork-barrel earmarks\n\nIf the deficit is really in the $200-300 billion range (which its not-- its more like $600-800BB), then cut across the board whatever percentage that is of the budget + some to retire some of the national debt.
93317
Ahh to have the Urban legend of Bill Clinton, how nice it must have been to live in a world of surplus money that he was supposed to have.  There has never been surplus money in this country.  The National Debt grew to over $5 trillion under his leadership.  It past a trillion dollars for the first time in our Nations History under Reagan and some almost 20 years later when Bill Clinton left office we had a debt of $5,650,000,000.00 or about double what it was when he took office.  And it will double again under Bush, and again under the next president unless we start doing something about it.  I have heard so much about all the surpluses under Clinton, but I have done my homework and there never were any.  You see the American People believe that by reducing the deficit we are reducing the debt.  The answer to that is NO! When we reduce the deficit we reduce the amount our debt grows for that year and that is all we are still spending more money than we are taking in.  John Kerry also believed that Clinton left surpluses of money in fact the amount he quoted during the 2004 campaign was the amount of actual debt that was left at the end of the Clinton administration,(Kerry quoted a $5.65 Trillion surplus at the end of the Clinton Presidency, we were in Debt that amount, maybe that is why he lost).  The only time in the history of our country that there was no National Debt was under Andrew Jackson(1833-41), the last time we had brought in more than we spent and brought it down was over 50 years ago Under President Harry S. Truman who will be my choice for the greatest American President, not only did he have that one year,(and it was the only year since Jackson was President), but he stands alone in History as having been the only man to order the use of Nuclear Weapons against another country in the time of war.  And that distinction goes for all mankind, no one else has ever ordered these weapons to be used against another and let us pray he remains the last as well.
777714
Try this website for information on the National Budget for 2000:\n\nhttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/guide02.html\n\nSpending\nThe Federal Government will spend nearly $1.8 trillion1, and have a surplus of over $117 billion in 2000, which we divided into nine large categories.\n\nThe largest Federal program is Social Security, which will provide monthly benefits to nearly 45 million retired and disabled workers, their dependents, and survivors. It accounts for 22 percent of your Federal dollar (or 23 percent of all Federal spending). \n\nMedicare, which will provide health care coverage for over almost 40 million elderly Americans and people with disabilities, consists of Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (insurance for physician costs and other services). Since its birth in 1965, Medicare has accounted for an ever-growing share of spending. In 2000 it will comprise 11 percent of your Federal dollar (or 12 percent of all Federal spending). \n\nMedicaid, in 2000, will provide health care services to almost 34 million Americans, including the poor, people with disabilities, and senior citizens in nursing homes. Unlike Medicare, the Federal Government shares the costs of Medicaid with the States, paying between 50 and 83 percent of the total (depending on each State's requirements). Federal and State costs are growing rapidly. Medicaid accounts for six percent of your Federal dollar (also six percent of the budget). \nOther means-tested entitlements provide benefits to people and families with incomes below certain minimum levels that vary from program to program. The major means-tested entitlements are Food Stamps and food aid to Puerto Rico, Supplemental Security Income, Child Nutrition, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and veterans' pensions. This category will account for an estimated six percent of your Federal dollar (also six percent of the budget). \n\nThe remaining mandatory spending, which mainly consists of Federal retirement and insurance programs, unemployment insurance, and payments to farmers, comprises six percent of your Federal dollar (also six percent of the budget). \nNational defense discretionary spending will total an estimated $275 billion in 2000, comprising nearly 15 percent of your Federal dollar (and 16 percent of the budget). \n\nNon-defense discretionary spending-a wide array of programs that include education, training, science, technology, housing, transportation, and foreign aid-has shrunk as a share of the budget from 23 percent in 1966 to an estimated 18 percent in 2000 (or 17 percent of your Federal dollar). \n\nInterest payments, primarily the result of previous budget deficits, averaged seven percent of Federal spending in the 1960s and 1970s. But, due to the large budget deficits that began in the 1980s that share quickly doubled to 15 percent. Since the budget is now in surplus, interest payments are estimated to drop to 12 percent of the budget in 2000 (11 percent of your Federal dollar). \n\nSix percent of your Federal dollar (the budget surplus) will not be spent. The President has proposed that any surplus be reserved until a plan to save Social Security has been enacted. \n\nNational defense \nGeneral science, space, and technology  \nEnergy \nNatural resources and environment  \nAgriculture \nCommerce and housing credit  \nTransportation \nCommunity and regional development  \nEducation, training, employment, and social services   \nHealth \nMedicare \nIncome security  \nSocial security  \nVeterans benefits and services  \nAdministration of justice  \nGeneral government  \nNet interest  \nAllowances \nUndistributed offsetting receipts
1137357
Spend some of the money, give some to the church and save the rest.  1/3 of each\n\n\nLC
827844
Disgusting, eh?  It goes beyond party lines though.  Democrats and Republicans both are addicted to spending. Everyone has some palms to grease.\n\nIf we could just agree on which programs to cut, our nation would be well on its way.\n\nI don't think you pay that back though.  You just keep making debt payments until the amount becomes trivial to repay.  Think:  100 year mortgage.  Also, US net worth is approx 40 Trillion.
856034
Never.  It's over 9 trillion dollars.  The national debt has been with us for... decades and as long as it's not a national priority (politicians tend to look at the number as a % of GNP), then it will never happen.
1093787
It depends on the American taxpayers, If they are willing to foot the bill, anything is possible. The more money we can throw at the task, the faster it can be accomplished
1019919
Maybe there's not enough money involved.
445551
decline. the governemtn should spend more on  the people living in poverty before it tries to save anyone else
462476
I would say yes. 504 Billion next year budgeted, that's 40% of the world's military budget. Throw in our Allies ,like Britain and NATO, and it jumps to 70% of the world's military budget. OOOh, everyone is so worried about China, they're spending 39 Billion on their military next year. Let's say that's a conservative estimate and double it, China won't spend 200 billion on their military until 2025!
134923
It's a non-renewable natural resource and it takes forever to be made (as in millions of years). So what we have now is pretty much all we have. If it were cheap then we would have probably run out of it already and then we'd all be screwed.
364780
their jurisdictions, and their source of budget money.
856685
We do, have you looked at the budget for the department of health and human services, medicare, medicaid and economic aid we give to the world not to mention that without contributions and dues the United Nations would cease to exist.  You need to look at the annual budgets for the last 15 years and add up the numbers before you start casting stones like that.  We spend trillions of dollars helping not kill people.  War is a product of last resort, do you know anyone killed on 9/11 or have you been to ground zero or the trade center before they blew up, I doubt it or you wouldn't have this mind set.
16683
I agree with bd, we help other countries more than we help our own and these people need our help. I understand your point but look at the monies our government wastes on less important issues. This one my friend is the best way I have seen in a long time to spend money, and if we don't rebuild New Orleans, what state is next? in a 100 years who knows what the earth will look like but I am all for preserving what we have and rebuilding when tragedy strikes.
473449
This year's budget is passed at $7.25 trillion.