Paladin77

The DEA does not spend 324 Billion. You must mean 324 Million. NO you are not even close to $600 Billion!!! Hurricanes are REAL EMERGENCIES you dim wit! As usual you do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about!

The DEA gets 2 billion 415 million the rest of the 324 billion is paid out to little organizations like ATF and CIA covert actions to name a few. The budget is not as simple as you are col. To hide what is done different agencies get funding that they never see. Department of Agriculture pays more than half of the covert operations. My pay check says Department of Agriculture but I work for DHS. Funny don’t you think? Anyway my point is that yes the DEA gets 324 BILLION not million. As much as you love the budget you should know that not all budget items are what they appear to be.



No, hurricanes are a part of nature, People move into areas that have hurricanes, tornados, floods, know or should know that these things happen, they have been happening for the last few thousand years so it should not be a shock when their home gets torn to pieces. My home was damaged during hurricane Andrew I did not cry to the government for help. An old saying comes to mind. You pays your money you take your chances. How come it is everyones responsibillity to pay for the stupidity of others? I build a house on the beach and the strom blows it a way the governmetn should pay to build me a new home? If I have a fire that burns down my house do I get the government to build me a new home? NO I should have insurance to cover the damage If I can't afford the insurance then I can't afford the house.

Real emergencies like the 9/11 attacks is what the emergency funds are for. The money has been sigging in the butget for so long that politicians felt it better to use the money to gain votes. I don't' like the money being wasted for no reason.

Paladin 77

Look at the Web Site I gave you. The only agencies that spend over 100 Billion per year are Defense, Interest and health and human Services. DEA does not spend anything like 324 BILLION. You are WRONG! Your cuts do not come close to $600 Billion.

Paladin77

Hurricanes can happen in the Gulf and in most of the south and north east coastal areas. Tornadoes can happen anyplace. So where would you have people live? To say storms like Katrina was not an emergency proves you belong in a NUT HOUSE. It was the worst disaster in our history!

I dunno, COLGene, I consider a 40+ year warning more than adequate:

WWW Link

Gidion

I guess when the next San Francisco Earthquake takes place, as almost all experts that study earth quakes believe will happen, we can say they had a 100 Plus years warning so it is not a disaster. What BS. The tornadoes that just took place are not emergencies. That is the most idiotic statement. Another excuse to just say the hell with anyone that needs help. Let's protect the wealth of the top 10% at all costs. What a sad attitude. You should all take a look at the parable about Lazarus and the Rich man!

One more time

No one has given an answer as to we have tax cuts to return a Surplus that NEVER existed?

I guess you Bush supporters just can not come up with some SPIN for this question!

Right it is not an emergency but it is a disaster. I never said they are not disasters. You know that if you live in San Francisco your home could be destroyed in moments. Why do people live there? Because they don’t think it will happen to them. I lived there and after one quake I moved to Florida. Hurricanes are ok and you can survive them if you are not stupid. I get a weeks notice that a hurricane is on the way. The longest lead time to warn someone a quake is coming is 15 seconds. I choose to live in Florida. I don’t like snow so I moved out of my native New York, I have lived in 47 of the 50 states and though New York is where my heart is Florida is my home.
People choose to live where they want to live. They can move anytime they want but they choose not to move. Yet they want me and the rest of us to pay for their pleasure. Not fair at all.

Gene, you are just trying to ignore the hard truth.

Let's see..using http://www.budgetsim.org/nbs/shortbudget06.html to balance the budget...

Results:

Spending ($2147.56 billion: cut $524.96 billion)

$446.11 billion .... Military Spending (No Change)

$123.04 billion .... Iraq War and Afghanistan Operations

Increased $11.19 bil. from base of $111.851 bil.( 10%)

$115.48 billion .... Veterans & Retired Military Pensions and Services (No Change)

$31.59 billion ..... International Affairs (No Change)

$23.97 billion ..... General Science, Space, and Technology (No Change)

$2.12 billion ...... Non-Defense Energy Spending (No Change)

$31.16 billion ..... Natural Resources and Environment (No Change)

$20.82 billion ..... Agriculture

Cut $5.19 bil. from base of $26.020 bil.(-20%)

$70.67 billion ..... Transportation (No Change)

$19.1 billion ...... Community and Regional Development (No Change)

$0 billion ......... Education

Cut $64.06 bil. from base of $64.068 bil.(-100%)

$47.81 billion ..... Training, Labor and Unemployment Programs (No Change)

$0 billion ......... Non-Medicare Health Spending

Cut $253.31 bil. from base of $253.320 bil.(-100%)

$345.75 billion .... Medicare (No Change)

$71.94 billion ..... Civilian Retirement (Social Security excluded) (No Change)

$0 billion ......... Aid to Low-Income Families

Cut $206.76 bil. from base of $206.773 bil.(-100%)

$25.62 billion ..... General Family Support (No Change)

$0 billion ......... Commerce and Housing Loan Programs

Cut $6.81 bil. from base of $6.816 bil.(-100%)

$544.82 billion .... Social Security (No Change)

$43.1 billion ...... Administration of Justice (No Change)

$17.75 billion ..... General Government Administration (No Change)

$211.08 billion .... Net Interest (No Change)

$-44.37 billion .... Undistributed Offsetting Receipts and Allowance (No Change)

Result: A $123 billion SURPLUS.

And I didn't even touch Medicare OR Social Security. I reduced the budget by $524 BILLION in one year.

So cutting spending can definitely eliminate the deficit and you don't even have to touch "entitlements". I eliminated programs that the federal government has no business being in.

I even increased military spending in Afghanistan by 10%.

But in reality, I wouldn't even have tod cut this much. I could just reduce most of those prograsm I eliminated by a little bit and wait for the tax receipts to catch up.

I saved over $200 billion just eliminating food stamps, federal low income housing, and other government programs that simply give money to people who didn't do anythign to earn it. If you believe in charity, like I do, donate to that to help the poor. But the federal government has no business taking money from its citizens to give to other citizens. Or put another way, it has no business doing that while we are running deficits.

 

Jesus said that we were to steal from the rich man to feed the beggar, Col? Your bible reads a bit different than mine. Jesus will judge both rich and poor, Col, but compassion at the point of a gun is not compassion. Using your logic, you should be robbing banks and giving the money to the poor. Oh wait. You're trying to, never mind.

Why is it everyone else is an "idiot", Col? You are the most piss poor debater I've ever seen because your entire defense revolves around how stupid you think everyone else is!

The truth is, ColGene, your "challenge" has been met, again, and again, and again, and yet you keep ignoring the facts.

YES, if an earthquake hits San Francisco, they should be prepared to deal with it. When the wildfires hit the Texas Panhandle last year, you weren't clamoring to give us money, Col, were you? And yet, I know families who lost everything but their lives to something far less predictable than the failure of an old, inadequate levee that was predicted to fail before I was born.

I want to see how Gene gets around what I posted above.

He insists you can't balance the budget by cutting spending. I show how you can balance the budget instantly without even touching social security or medicare.

And in reality, if we just froze the programs I'd but rather than eliminate them, in a few years, the tax receipts from the growing economy would create a surplus anyway.

You don't need to raise taxes to get rid of the deficit. That is a FACT. Gene simply doesn't WANT to cut spending because he is a socialist who sees it the government's responsibility to steal from its most productive citizens at the point of a gun to give to people who have done nothing to earn it.

The government isn't a charity.

Gene, you're lucky you get any replies at all, let alone 'answers'.

For some reason something that simple is just too hard for some to grasp.

Dragional

First, every line you say no change is a CUT because of inflation. Since many of those categories include salaries that will go up with inflation to keep them with NO Change is not realistic unless you can end inflation.

You have no change for veterans that will go up due to the injured from the Iraq war.

You have no change for the military- that is not correct because of the increase to the Active Military and the need to replace most of the equipment. Military spending will go up.

You have no change in interest-- That is not possible since the national debt continues to grow and interest rates are increasing. Interest will increase BIG TIME.

However MOST of your cuts would impact the poorest Americans that need help. You list the following CUTS:

64 Billion From Education-- That will simply increase state and local taxes to replace those federal cuts.

253 Billion From health for the poor

206 Billion From help to low income Families.


You clearly show you stripes with your response. The HELL with the Poor so the Rich do not have to pay a little more in taxes out of their huge Surplus. When you correct the assumption that can not be achieved like Veterans, Military and Interest plus the inflation and restore the help to people that need the help, we are right back to the $600 Billion deficit.
You need to read the parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man!

You can't be seruious!!! so if inflation is eliminated that year does that mean we get to give less money? How about when inflation was less than .011% for the year? This does not happen when democrats are in power but it does happen when republicans are in power from time to time.

It seems you don't want to cut anything but you want to increase spending on everything. Kind of what the Democrats have always done when in power. Nice of you to show your true colours