[ebuddy]

Gas prices over $3.00/gallon = Bush's fault. It must also be his fault now that they are back down below $2.50/gallon.

Those who said N. Korea should be a targeted instead of Iraq and wouldn't listen to others who said there's a peaceful means to that end, said it was Bush's fault. Now, N. Korea has reached an agreement. Is this also Bush's fault? Let this hit the front page then, QUICK TAKE ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL-RATING POLL!!!

Trouble in Afghanistan = Bush's fault. Relatively successful election in Afghanistan for the first time since when? This must also be Bush's fault.

Hurricane Katrina and the slow response afterwards is Bush's fault. So...all the positive actions since are his fault now then.

Sorry, had to include this stuff because we're not hesitant in pointing out his failures. I thought it'd be fun to point to a few successes for a change.

[cmeisenzahl]

But if "big oil" has carte blance to "price-gouge" as they see fit, why would gas prices /ever/ go down? ;-)

[loki74]

This is very interesting. Very interesting indeed. Of course, there will always be those people who are in denial about the wonderful things this President has done. *sigh* I guess there just not much we can do about those ...people.

[spauldingg]

the wonderful things this President has done.

Please elaborate.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

Please elaborate.

See OP

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Gas prices over $3.00/gallon = Bush's fault. It must also be his fault now that they are back down below $2.50/gallon.

So if your saying it wasn't his fault that it was $3/gal (which I don't feel it directly was) why would it be his fault now that it is lower? (Still $2.85 here)

Those who said N. Korea should be a targeted instead of Iraq and wouldn't listen to others who said there's a peaceful means to that end

Agreed, but I also thought there was a peaceful means to Iraq as well, now it is mess with no end in sight.

Iran is now in a position to, and has the will to exert its political influence over the Shia areas of Iraq and I see the US leaving Iraq much like leaving at the end of Vietnam.

Hurricane Katrina and the slow response afterwards is Bush's fault.

Was anyone stupid enough to say Hurricane Katrina was Bush's fault, or are you being facetious?

I thought it'd be fun to point to a few successes for a change.

While I am no big fan of Bush, I am hesitant to blame so much on one man, I doubt he is allowed to make too many decisions.

[dreilly1]

I think that the Mets' recent nosedive is all Bush's fault. It must be.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Gas prices over $3.00/gallon = Bush's fault. It must also be his fault now that they are back down below $2.50/gallon.

Gas prices over $3.00/gallon = Bush's fault. Glad we agree.

Those who said N. Korea should be a targeted instead of Iraq and wouldn't listen to others who said there's a peaceful means to that end, said it was Bush's fault. Now, N. Korea has reached an agreement. Is this also Bush's fault?

The agreement will break down, since it is nearly identical to Clinton's agreement. This is both Clinton and Bush's fault — no president would have been able to make NK go away, but Bush's axis of evil speech caused a crisis.

Hurricane Katrina and the slow response afterwards is Bush's fault. So...all the positive actions since are his fault now then.

If you say so.

This whole logic of "Bush caused a crisis, and now it isn't quite so bad, so let's 'point out a few successes for a change'" doesn't make sense. The fact is that a lot of people have died, and a lot of money has been lost because of Bush's mistakes. If you are agreeing with that, then what do "all the positive actions since" matter?

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by zerostar

Iran is now in a position to, and has the will to exert its political influence over the Shia areas of Iraq...

How do you figure?

[dcmacdaddy]

Yeah, if NK follows through and commits to a verifiable inspection program AND if we follow through to re-consider giving them light-water nuclear reactor technology then yes, Bush should get most or all the credit for this achievement. But it can't be just the North Koreans doing their bit for Bush to claim "victory" on this, we have to follow through as well on our commitment to them.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by idjeff

How do you figure?

Phear.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Gas prices over $3.00/gallon = Bush's fault. It must also be his fault now that they are back down below $2.50/gallon.

Those who said N. Korea should be a targeted instead of Iraq and wouldn't listen to others who said there's a peaceful means to that end, said it was Bush's fault. Now, N. Korea has reached an agreement. Is this also Bush's fault? Let this hit the front page then, QUICK TAKE ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL-RATING POLL!!!

Trouble in Afghanistan = Bush's fault. Relatively successful election in Afghanistan for the first time since when? This must also be Bush's fault.

Hurricane Katrina and the slow response afterwards is Bush's fault. So...all the positive actions since are his fault now then.

Sorry, had to include this stuff because we're not hesitant in pointing out his failures. I thought it'd be fun to point to a few successes for a change.

So I guess when it spikes back up over $3 a gallon because of Rita it is his fault again? BTW - when it goes down (and where are you getting gas for less than $2.50) it's to his credit, not his fault, unless you want prices over $3.

All the same President's do not control the price of fuel or any other commodity, the markets do. A reasonable person would know that factors such as India and China's voracious growth and consumption, the notion that we might have used half of the oil in the earth already, distribution and refinement issues and disruption in the flow (insurgents in Iraq, a hurricane in the Gulf) put pressures on supply and with oil in such high demand the prices skyrocket. (I might also throw in the collusion and greediness of the oil companies but let's just take that as a given.)

In the past, where a President might have had some influence on the price of oil is through using the power of the office to lean on OPEC for more production to increase supply, but even those days will be ending soon as OPEC has less reserves and their influence on world oil prices is waning.

The President can also (IIRC) temporarily freeze the federal tax on gasoline (18 cents a gallon I think), temporarily reduce the environmental standards for current refineries so they can produce more, open the Federal reserves, try to dig up ANWR or some other domestic source and of course lean on the oil companies a bit.

Of those choices the first one is not sound fiscal policy, you don't eliminate a revenue flow when your already running a deficit and considering the cost that recovery from Katrina is going to take.

The second one is bad for you get short term gains in exchange for long term ills, literally, as those standards protect us from toxic emmissions and other pollutants and eliminating them would eventually lead to a spike down the road in childhood cancers or what not. Since refineries are not usually built in the Kennebunkports of the world those suffering would be poor, with no medical coverage, who's cost would fall upon the middle class to cover. A savings of 25¢ on the gallon today could end up being a 1% raise in your taxes 10 years from now.

Open the Federal reserves is a drop in the bucket as far as America's fuel consumption - I would rather they remain reserves and if used, used to fuel emergency and military vehicles in times of disaster.

I am against digging up ANWR partly for the caribou (yeah, I'm a tree hugger and proud of it) but also partly because we are addicted to oil. Oil is bad for the environment, bad for our national security, bad for our economics, bad for our health, etc. etc. etc. I see oil price spikes as a good thing because only when it is hittng $4, $4.50 a gallon will we get off our collective couch loving asses and do something serious about an alternative fuel. Fiscal conservatives say they want to starve the beast when it comes to the Federal government, I kind of have a same approach to our fuel addiciton - a little tough love baby.

And as for leaning on the oil companies....

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie

Gas prices over $3.00/gallon = Bush's fault. Glad we agree.

We don't agree. The fact of the matter is a great many had cited these very examples as Bush incompetencies. When it is apparent that these issues are short-lived and we move back to business as usual, of course those issues are not also credited to him. I just like to point these little things out.

The agreement will break down, since it is nearly identical to Clinton's agreement. This is both Clinton and Bush's fault — no president would have been able to make NK go away, but Bush's axis of evil speech caused a crisis.

The leader of N. Korea fashions himself a kind of "Duke". He thinks he's a bad man and has tried to bully the International Community. We continue with threats of sanctioning etc and he will bend as he normally does. China isn't happy with them either in these cases. There's lots of pressure on N. Korea to live up to this bargaining. Some of our more hawkish liberals were quick to say let's leave Iraq and bomb N. Korea. They've proven themselves ignorant. Now, if after 12 more years of playing a shell game, sanctions, 13 UN Resolutions and one calling for "severe consequences", I'd hope we'd do what was necessary in spite of an International Community paralyzed by fear. For now, we will bargain.

If you say so.

Someone asked; "do they really blame Katrina on Bush?" and that poster tried to separate himself from the indictments made against Bush. This poster not only paid no attention to mainstream media, but is not even paying attention to the forum he frequents. Then, you have Nagin basically saying; "there's only room in this town for one mayor" blah,blah, blah; "everyone come back home in spite of the Feds' warnings to the contrary" then to say; "shucks, maybe them ol' Feds were right, better stay away" just proves the incompetence of this man and his officials. They still have no running water, power, or emergency infrastructure and for whatever reason this man was quick to repeat the very mistakes he made in the first place. Kills me. Just kills me.

This whole logic of "Bush caused a crisis, and now it isn't quite so bad, so let's 'point out a few successes for a change'" doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense because of your filtering of data. This isn't what I'm saying at all. Perhaps you should have another read. If increasing gas prices are Bush's fault, so are decreasing gas prices. If hurricane lack of relief is Bush's fault, so are signs of immense efforts of relief. If bungled foreign policy is Bush's fault, so are foreign policy successes. I can understand why this doesn't make sense to you as you can only see in one direction apparently.

The fact is that a lot of people have died,

As many as in the Chicago heat wave during the Clinton administration??? Were you this quick to point to the economic policy failures of a man who witnessed people dying because they had no friggin' fans and air conditioning and lacked water??? Over 700 died there. Did you see pictures of his face plastered on message boards?

and a lot of money has been lost because of Bush's mistakes. If you are agreeing with that, then what do "all the positive actions since" matter?

Deficit to GDP lower under Bush. Economy better under Bush. Less unemployment under Bush. More home ownership under Bush. More minorities in places of real authority under Bush. If you fail to acknowledge success, what even gets you out of bed in the morning???

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

I am against digging up ANWR partly for the caribou (yeah, I'm a tree hugger and proud of it) but also partly because we are addicted to oil.

Oil consumption runs directly in line with economy. For you to say it's bad for economy is absolutely off the mark. Remove oil entirely and watch the decline of our economy. It maintains many a job and generates many a dollar.

Oil is bad for the environment,

So is raising cattle, smoking cigarrettes, driving VW microbusses, and running the air conditioning.

bad for our national security,

and good for it.

bad for our economics,

and good for it.

bad for our health,

and good for it.

etc. etc. etc. I see oil price spikes as a good thing because only when it is hittng $4, $4.50 a gallon will we get off our collective couch loving asses and do something serious about an alternative fuel. Fiscal conservatives say they want to starve the beast when it comes to the Federal government, I kind of have a same approach to our fuel addiciton - a little tough love baby.

Because it's what you want right? That's a little selfish. Many of our society's poor cannot afford a $35,000.00 Honda hybrid, nor can they afford $4.50/gallon. Maybe the fiscal conservatives are a little more compassionate than you. Truck drivers and other blue collar employees cannot live without oil either, but I know, you're right; let's focus on saving the caribou. This is generally why you won't see; "tree-hugger" and "proud of it" in the same sentence. Tell ya what, you worry about caribou and I'll worry about humans. Deal?

And as for leaning on the oil companies....

They've put more money in researching alternative fuel sources than you right? They're not all bad.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by zerostar

So if your saying it wasn't his fault that it was $3/gal (which I don't feel it directly was) why would it be his fault now that it is lower? (Still $2.85 here)

$2.46/gallon here. The post is not what I'm saying, it's pointing out the fallacy in the arguments of others. If increasing prices are his fault. Decreasing prices are his fault.

Agreed, but I also thought there was a peaceful means to Iraq as well, now it is mess with no end in sight.

You didn't read the 13th UN Resolution calling for "severe consequences" for continued non-compliance then. This doesn't mean yet another failed attempt at economic sanctions. It means something more. At least, it does now.

Iran is now in a position to, and has the will to exert its political influence over the Shia areas of Iraq and I see the US leaving Iraq much like leaving at the end of Vietnam.

This I'm not certain I agree with though I respect the level of instability a volatile Iran offers a volatile Middle East. This remains to be seen. It's not as if Iraq was not in an arms race with Iran and the region was well on it's way to singing Kumbaya hand-in-hand prior to our arrival. I'm not sure what you're answer is to ending Middle East turmoil, but I can assure you it has probably already been tried.

Was anyone stupid enough to say Hurricane Katrina was Bush's fault, or are you being facetious?

We'll start with Kanye West I guess, but you're right; there aren't many who believe he's a real super-genius. I guess we could start with some threads offered here at MacNN, though I'm not sure all these thread-starters will be happy with you calling them stupid;

- Katrina proves Federal Government incompetent
- Great American Photo Op
- Should the head of FEMA be fired
- Bush admits to Katrina failures
- Bush and hurricane Katrina
- How low can Bush's approval ratings go
- Mommy, I have to go potty

While I am no big fan of Bush, I am hesitant to blame so much on one man, I doubt he is allowed to make too many decisions.

He uses the same method of leadership those before him have used. He is afforded the power of CIC and of President of the United States. There is a limit to what the President is "allowed" to do and it is contingent upon the limitations set forth in the Constitution. He has employed the same level of Presidential discretion as his predecessors.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Oil consumption runs directly in line with economy. For you to say it's bad for economy is absolutely off the mark. Remove oil entirely and watch the decline of our economy. It maintains many a job and generates many a dollar.

Any economy that is centralized on one, finite item is in danger of collapse at any time. Name one segment of our economy that does not rely heavily on oil. You missed my point, when oil prices spike it will not be removed from our economy, that is obviously impossible, but once it does it gets the everyday Joe who sees this reflected in his wallet (along with the extra cost for anything delivered to a store by a truck that uses oil, the extra cost for manufacturing most of those products (plastic is partially composed of oil), etc. etc. also hitting his wallet he (the market) is going to start/want to migrate to a cheaper, alternative fuel. However, because oil is so encompassing in our society I don't think this is something (transition from oil) the private sector should do alone.

So is raising cattle, smoking cigarrettes, driving VW microbusses, and running the air conditioning.

Nice, you've combined the two wrongs make a right and everyone is jumping off the bridge so I'll do it as well argument into one.

Because it's what you want right? That's a little selfish. Many of our society's poor cannot afford a $35,000.00 Honda hybrid, nor can they afford $4.50/gallon. Maybe the fiscal conservatives are a little more compassionate than you. Truck drivers and other blue collar employees cannot live without oil either, but I know, you're right; let's focus on saving the caribou. This is generally why you won't see; "tree-hugger" and "proud of it" in the same sentence. Tell ya what, you worry about caribou and I'll worry about humans. Deal?

See my initial reply above, you, once again, misunderstood my intentions. I am not for raising the value of caribou over humans though seemingly unlike you I feel there is room for both on this planet and since we are the advanced species and do more harm to the globe than the caribou herds it is incumbant upon us to help protect those who cannot protect themselves from our deeds.

My goals, IMO, are to better society for everyone, rich and poor alike. The transition from oil to alternative fuels might be rocky but in the end it will be for everyone's betterment. Oil is finite, $4-$5 a gallon will be here sooner than you think, would it not be better for the poor of America and the world that we look into a cheaper alternatives and the transition of our economy to them now rather than when there is no oil left? I think the 'stay the course' , to borrow a phrase, mentality is bit more callous than my approach.

As for the compassion of fiscal conservatives - let's see, elminiating medicaid, medicare, social security, HeadStart, welfare and other programs which directly benefit the poor and underpriviliged in this nation, who I guess from your reponse are one of your main concerns, is your idea of compassion than you have one Orwellian view of the world eBuddy.

They've put more money in researching alternative fuel sources than you right? They're not all bad.

I wouldn't think so if they were making serious efforts at some transition. The technology has existed since the seventies for alternative fuels yet big oil and Detroit have done very little to develop the market for them. I would have to say that in my view they are a lot less noble than in yours.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Any economy that is centralized on one, finite item is in danger of collapse at any time. Name one segment of our economy that does not rely heavily on oil. You missed my point, when oil prices spike it will not be removed from our economy, that is obviously impossible, but once it does it gets the everyday Joe who sees this reflected in his wallet (along with the extra cost for anything delivered to a store by a truck that uses oil, the extra cost for manufacturing most of those products (plastic is partially composed of oil), etc. etc. also hitting his wallet he (the market) is going to start/want to migrate to a cheaper, alternative fuel. However, because oil is so encompassing in our society I don't think this is something (transition from oil) the private sector should do alone.

It's also not something the US should do alone. You're idea of "tough times" won't go very far if others are not as willing to endure them with us. Survival my man. Survival.

Nice, you've combined the two wrongs make a right and everyone is jumping off the bridge so I'll do it as well argument into one.

No, I'm telling you that it doesn't do a lot of good to preach the ills of oil while driving an oil gussler, or using air conditioning, and you cannot expect our livelihood to cease based on the interests and extremist views of a few. Of course we should continue the course of alternate resouces, but not at the risk of national security or economy. "tough times" should not stop at humans. It may have to get a little tough on caribou as well. Truth be told, we can't use more lumber because of tree huggers. Good alternative? Plastic. Nope, can't use that either. Well, we'd like to decrease our dependance on foreign sources of oil, but can't do that either. I hear a lot of nay-saying, but not a whole lot of ideas.

See my initial reply above, you, once again, misunderstood my intentions. I am not for raising the value of caribou over humans though seemingly unlike you I feel there is room for both on this planet and since we are the advanced species and do more harm to the globe than the caribou herds it is incumbant upon us to help protect those who cannot protect themselves from our deeds.

Yet I'd be willing to guess the caribou are more likely of an effective evacuation plan than the average New Orlean official. And as far as "helping protect those who cannot protect themselves from our deeds" in regards to caribou you might say I'm Pro-Choice.

My goals, IMO, are to better society for everyone, rich and poor alike. The transition from oil to alternative fuels might be rocky but in the end it will be for everyone's betterment.

You don't know this for certain.

Oil is finite, $4-$5 a gallon will be here sooner than you think, would it not be better for the poor of America and the world that we look into a cheaper alternatives and the transition of our economy to them now rather than when there is no oil left?

Yes, but good luck getting that International buy-in. If we're the only ones bent on alternative resouces of oil and going through those "tough times" alone, guess what?

I think the 'stay the course' , to borrow a phrase, mentality is bit more callous than my approach.

The transition has already begun and it begins with research. It might not be as fast as you would like, but it's more disciplined than spiraling our economy and our livelihood into "tough times". Why don't we wait for a Democrat Administration so these "tough times" can disseminate blame more equally? I like that idea. I'll be all for "tough times" then.

As for the compassion of fiscal conservatives - let's see, elminiating medicaid

lie, it hasn't even come close to being eliminated nor elminiated.

medicare

lie, it hasn't even come close to being eliminated. Where are you getting your information??? Links please? Data? Anything at all???

social security

There's no social security anymore???

HeadStart

No, I think it's called the "challenge group" now. HeadStart is gone???

welfare and other programs which directly benefit the poor and underpriviliged in this nation

Care to name a few of these programs or was the car going too fast for you to read the bumper sticker???

who I guess from your reponse are one of your main concerns, is your idea of compassion than you have one Orwellian view of the world eBuddy.

The faith-based initiatives have proven a more effective use of resources and focused aid, less fraud, etc... and are located directly in the communities needed. Other than rich, seltzer-drinking bureaucrats sitting in gated communities making decisions for people whose neighborhoods wouldn't be trusted in even parking their cars, let alone getting out.

I wouldn't think so if they were making serious efforts at some transition. The technology has existed since the seventies for alternative fuels yet big oil and Detroit have done very little to develop the market for them.

What can they do? Is this being done elsewhere in mass quantity? Your idea of "tough times" is a hard sell my friend. You're not in favor of tough times in Iraq, I'm not sure why you'd be in favor of that mentality here.

I would have to say that in my view they are a lot less noble than in yours.

Many a tragedy began with "noble intentions". I don't care if I look noble to you. Arming yourself with facts on blue-collar employment, effects of high fuel prices, and what programs are actually being modified and why would probably do you well. I'll give you some time young padiwan.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It's also not something the US should do alone. You're idea of "tough times" won't go very far if others are not as willing to endure them with us. Survival my man. Survival.

Your being short sighted. If the US leads the way in the development and use of alternative fuels then we'll be in a nice vis-a-vis the alternative fuel market (which everyone is going to have to adapt at some point) and supply and demand. Better it be American technology being exported than Japanese being imported.

You are right, it is survival I'm talking about. If you don't start now then where do we stand in fifty years when the oil runs out? The infrastructure has to be started at some time. I'm willing to make the sacrifice today for my grandkids future.

No, I'm telling you that it doesn't do a lot of good to preach the ills of oil while driving an oil gussler, or using air conditioning, and you cannot expect our livelihood to cease based on the interests and extremist views of a few. Of course we should continue the course of alternate resouces, but not at the risk of national security or economy. "tough times" should not stop at humans. It may have to get a little tough on caribou as well. Truth be told, we can't use more lumber because of tree huggers. Good alternative? Plastic. Nope, can't use that either. Well, we'd like to decrease our dependance on foreign sources of oil, but can't do that either. I hear a lot of nay-saying, but not a whole lot of ideas.

Once again you are writing as if I said cut oil off tommorow and struggle until we find the alternative. I am saying we need to begin today if we are to survive in the future, economically, strtegically, environmentally, etc. Why would it have to be tough on the caribou? Are they driving SUVs now ?

Who says you can't use lumber because of my fellow tree huggers?

And my whole premise is the idea. Let me be explicit:

We need to move away from an oil-based economy to one based on an alternative fuel(s). I can't give you the entire plan on how we get from here to there in the next twenty-five years but it has to happen. The only nay-saying I am doing is to criticize the fact that we have established an economy that relies on one, finite source to maintain it.

Yet I'd be willing to guess the caribou are more likely of an effective evacuation plan than the average New Orlean official. And as far as "helping protect those who cannot protect themselves from our deeds" in regards to caribou you might say I'm Pro-Choice.


You don't know this for certain.


Yes, but good luck getting that International buy-in. If we're the only ones bent on alternative resouces of oil and going through those "tough times" alone, guess what?

If you think we're the only ones looking at alternatives than you have a narrow world view. The race for dominance of the next energy source has begun and I'd rather we be playing the role of the Saudi's this time than having to suckle up to another nation for a good percentage of our energy supply.

The transition has already begun and it begins with research. It might not be as fast as you would like, but it's more disciplined than spiraling our economy and our livelihood into "tough times". Why don't we wait for a Democrat Administration so these "tough times" can disseminate blame more equally? I like that idea. I'll be all for "tough times" then.

OK, let's stop the nonsense. For the last time I have never advocated cutting oil off tomorrow and for you to keep taking that position is disingenous. As for transition already starting - yeah, 30 odd years ago the technology existed to get off petro oil. Even before that when you consider the diesel engine, which can run on vegetable oil. It would depend on who is head of that Democratic admin and how indebted they are to Exxon-Mobil to see what the pace of change would be.

lie, it hasn't even come close to being eliminated nor elminiated.

lie, it hasn't even come close to being eliminated. Where are you getting your information??? Links please? Data? Anything at all???

There's no social security anymore???

No, I think it's called the "challenge group" now. HeadStart is gone???

Care to name a few of these programs or was the car going too fast for you to read the bumper sticker???

What I outlined are all social conservative goals, thankfully none of them have been put into effect. Thanks for the idea though, that would make a good bumper sticker.

The faith-based initiatives have proven a more effective use of resources and focused aid, less fraud, etc... and are located directly in the communities needed. Other than rich, seltzer-drinking bureaucrats sitting in gated communities making decisions for people whose neighborhoods wouldn't be trusted in even parking their cars, let alone getting out.

Nice stereotyping, what bumper sticker did you get that off of?

What can they do? Is this being done elsewhere in mass quantity? Your idea of "tough times" is a hard sell my friend. You're not in favor of tough times in Iraq, I'm not sure why you'd be in favor of that mentality here.

I think you've lost me here. I'm not in favor of the Iraq war but I think they have their own fill of tough times over there. How's that relevant again?

Many a tragedy began with "noble intentions". I don't care if I look noble to you.

consider your objective achieved!

Arming yourself with facts on blue-collar employment, effects of high fuel prices, and what programs are actually being modified and why would probably do you well. I'll give you some time young padiwan.

Let's see, that would be my Dad, a Union carpenter, my best friend, a Union Electrician, my neighbor, a machinist, my wife, a nurse (ok, it's not true blue collar but it's hard work), the programs being modified - let's see Bush's FY 2006 proposed budget had cuts in medicaid of $45B over ten years, cut $440 million in Safe and Drug-Free School grants, $225 million for the Even Start literacy program, $280 million for Upward Bound, proposed cuts in low-income housing, Housing for Disabled Persons is reduced 50 percent and new construction is prohibited); rural housing (Section 515) is also dramatically reduced (about 75 percent and new construction is prohibited). Forty percent of Section 515 resident units are seniors 62 and over. The Section 8 voucher program remains under funded - current year funding will not cover costs for about 80,000 of the two million existing vouchers and HUD has imposed a four percent cut in administrative costs. More than 300,000 seniors are currently served by the Section 8 voucher program, cuts in Energy Assistance, The Administration proposes to cut funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) by $200 million LIHEAP already only serves fewer than one-fifth of those eligible for assistance. Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) funds are frozen.

[Spliffdaddy]

you lost that argument.