[etouffe123]

According to another post by Fritzer Pres. Bush and his Corporate Play-boys want to cut the budgets of No Child Left Behind, health care and job training......and Fritzer thinks this is just super....but Fritzer, while never overlooking a chance to insult those who disagree with him,....overlooks this item from the National Endowment for the Arts Bulletin 2005

President Bush Requests $18 Million Budget Increase for National Endowment for the Arts, Largest Since 1984
Mrs. Laura Bush Announces Increase to Fund New American Masterpieces Initiative, a Touring and Education Project

January 29, 2004

Yeah lets take it from the kids and give it for the entertainment of the fat-cat Republicans and Democrats. I say screw em...they want the arts then support the damn arts....and not with one penny of taxpayer money either.

 

[Fritzer]

Democrats are just pissed that Republicans won't pay to put crucifixes in urine.

 

[etouffe123]

It is not the Democrats who increased the NEA budget by $18M...and if your reference is to a cross in urine = art then its your Repuplican Congress and its leader President Bush who wants to increase their budget.....read the article...s-l-o-w-l-y.

 

[Fritzer]

If I'm reading the NEA websites budget history correctly:

http://www.nea.gov/about/Facts/AppropriationsHistory.html

that 18 M increase is in an increased budget of only 4 M! Wow, that's some pretty seriously screwed up math you're presesenting. If fact, what the president is "funding" (actually, Congress funds, but you you knew that didn't you) is an 18 million program (on American classic art, not crucifixes in piss) taken out of the existing budget, which increases 4 M dollars, out of 121 Million dollars, for an net increase of about 3%, and very much in line with the recent increases.

In fact, looking at NEA funding history, you can see the onset of the republican takeover of Congress in about 1994-1996, where the budget plunged from 174 to 100 million, a number which it has not even yet exceeded, not to mention any inflation correction.

1990 $ 171,255,000

1991 $ 174,080,737

1992 $ 175,954,680

1993 $ 174,459,382

1994 $ 170,228,000

1995 $ 162,311,000

1996 $ 99,470,000

1997 $ 99,494,000

1998 $ 98,000,000

1999 $ 97,966,000

2000 $ 97,627,600

2001 $104,769,000

2002 $115,220,000

2003 $115,731,000

2004 $120,971,000

2005 $121,263,000

2006 $125,600,000

While I wouldn't care if Congress abolished the NEA, the republicans have a better record both of controlling it's costs and its contents than the Democrats have, any way you look at it.

 

[etouffe123]

Your reply was a chart showing that Republicans wanted to cut the budget in certain (select) area's and the Demo's did not go along. My point is, and you well know it, when it comes to benefits for the rich Republicans no cuts but rather a increase was suggested by the President. Whether or not its "in line" with previous increases is really irrelevant.
Guess who was President when the NEA budget was cut from $162, 311, 000 to $99,470,000. If you guessed Clinton you were right at least once today.

Keep trying sooner or later you have to win one.

 

[Fritzer]

You keep losing. Congress determine the NEA budget, not the President (the saying is the President proposes, but Congress disposes). Who ran Congress in 1992, when Clinton came in (hintemocrats). Who ran Congress in 2000, when Bush came in (Hint: Republicans). In which year was the NEA budget higher? As I pointed out, even after years of incremental increases, largely for inflation, the NEA budget under republicans has not reached the levels it reached under democrats.

But continue to ignore the facts, and you can continue to think you win.

 

[etouffe123]

Deja Moo..........same ole bull. Only you can try to make a increase in the Republican Federal Budget item seem like a fiscally responsible budget cut.

However, may I encourage your continuing endeavor. It puts the proper perspective on your posts.[grin]