Paladin77

WAKE UP. We all live with the effects of inflation. In addition, as we grow in population most of the services that government provides increases which requires more people to service the growing population.

I pointed out that areas like the military, interest and veterans will go up and provided the reasons why that will happen. To make believe that will not happen is just dumb. In addition most of the cuts are to help people at the very bottom of the economic ladder--as well as the elderly and very young. Anyone that would cut those services so the rich can get a little richer should be ignored and just make believe that are not part of our country.

The highest inflation rate for Mr. Bush was 4% The highest inflation for Mr. Clinton was 4% the lowest inflation for Mr.Carter was 9% and his highest was 15% translating interest rates to 21% Mr. Clinton only rased taxes once.

Back to the point. With a 4% inflation for a month not even a quarter or a year it is impossible to rains spendign to keep up with inflation because the average rise in spending is 10% and the average inflation for the year is 4% So you want to increase spending to equal inflation then you need to cut spending by 6% across the board.

paladin77

What I was saying about Dragional's spending plan was that he had many areas held constant. What I was saying is that they would need to increase at least as much as inflation. I know that inflation has been moderate but even at the low rates over the past 6 years inflation is up 25% since 2000. Bush and the GOP controlled Congress has increased spending more then inflation and certain elements of the budget like Interest, veterans and military expense will continue to increase. We also had the largest increase in entitlements with the Drug Plan and did not add one cent to pay for another $60 Billion in Prescription Drug expense. That is the sort of irresponsible fiscal management that Bush and the GOP have inflicted on our country during the past 6 years!

The 25% inflation is not exactly true. Over the last 6 years the highest month of inflation was 4% extend that out over 6 years you have 25% but many months were 2% and averaged out to 2% inflation for the year. The budgets are done yearly so the budget would never reflect the 25% you claim. If I understand you correctly you want to raise taxes to cover the average inflation rated for the last 6 years instead of the accepted practice of raising spending as needed by the current year projections of inflation.

Since you're too lazy to use google, let me revisit some of my proposed budget cuts, Col:

Here are some cuts I propose for Bush and company for the coming year. I'm not in all cases suggesting we do away with these departments completely, but that we seriously cut back (he said he wants to remove redundant federal agencies among other things). I'm sure most people will agree with some departments, disagree with others:

--The Department of Homeland Security: Homeland Security should be under an already existing cabinet post, that of the Defense Department. The United States was already set up with a Homeland Security Department prior to 9/11; they're called the state National Guards. A post and a few staff at the national level to coordinate between the states is all that is needed to efficiently operate
--The National Endowment for the Arts: Congressional pork at its finest. If pissing in a jar and putting a crucifix in it makes one an artist, call me Picasso. Seriously, though, the arts, while a vital part of our society, should be privately unerwritten. Period.
--The BATF: A holdover from the Prohibition era, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (always wondered why they grouped those three together), has become an albatross that has cost far too much to the taxpayer. While incidents such as Waco and Ruby Ridge are now part of a bygone era, they are examples of the horrific, totalitarian control these people feel justified in exerting over U.S. citizens.
--The Border Patrol: Laughably inefficient, these units also replicate the role the National Guards should be playing in border states. Simply eliminate them and divert part of their funding to the Guard units of border states.
--The DEA: The "war on drugs" was an expensive lesson in how NOT to control drugs within our borders. The DEA replicates the role of other law enforcement agencies and should be done away with.
--The EPA: We have held our environmental standards to international standards for years. Each individual state has different environmental needs, and the powers currently granted the EPA should be granted to state environmental agencies.
--The BLM: The Bureau of Land Management should produce a plan to turn over federally held lands to state jurisdiction. Poor supervision at the federal level and a high cost to consumer make this an unnecessary expense.

I'm sure I stepped on everyone's toes somewhere in there, but I really feel these agencies need serious cuts. With a skyrocketing budget and a whole bevy of ridiculous pork barrel expenditures, it's time to tighten our collective belts.

LOL. Would you like to compare charitable donations for the last year, Gene?

If you want to donate to charity, then donate to charity.

But you claimed you couldn't balance the budget without raising taxes. Clearly, you can. You just have to stop giving handouts to "the poor" from the federal government. 

Telling the guy who gives tens of thousands a year to charity that he doesn't care about the poor while I suspect you give trivial (if any) to charities is absurd.

You supporting the government taxing ME higher doesn't make you more generous, Gene. Perhaps YOU should read Lazarus and the Rich man.

Oh and just for fun, even if I increase spending by 10% (more than double the rate of inflation) in tons of areas, I can still eliminate the deficit without touching social security and medicare just by eliminating various bloat programs and welfare programs:

Spending ($2189.55 billion: cut $482.97 billion)

$490.72 billion .... Military Spending

Increased $44.62 bil. from base of $446.105 bil.( 10%)

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

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

$127.03 billion .... Veterans & Retired Military Pensions and Services

Increased $11.55 bil. from base of $115.482 bil.( 10%)

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

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

$1.7 billion ....... Non-Defense Energy Spending

Cut $0.41 bil. from base of $2.121 bil.(-20%)

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

$13.01 billion ..... Agriculture

Cut $13 bil. from base of $26.020 bil.(-50%)

$77.74 billion ..... Transportation

Increased $7.07 bil. from base of $70.673 bil.( 10%)

$0 billion ......... Community and Regional Development

Cut $19.09 bil. from base of $19.097 bil.(-100%)

$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)

$47.41 billion ..... Administration of Justice

Increased $4.31 bil. from base of $43.099 bil.( 10%)

$19.53 billion ..... General Government Administration

Increased $1.78 bil. from base of $17.754 bil.( 10%)

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

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

Result: $82 billion surplus

And a reminder to Gene: Gene supporting raising other people's taxes doesn't make him noble or compassionate for the poor. It just makes him greedy and hypocritical.

Just because I believe the government is not the right avenue to help the less fortunate and you do doesn't make you compassionate and me not.

I happen to believe the government hand outs are destructive to society and families. Since aid to the poor started, out of wedlock births have skyrocketed and the divorce rate has greatly increased. And why not? Why should people be responsible and moral if the government will take care of them?

All of which is irrelevant because Gene's argument was simply that you could NOT balance the budget without raising taxes.  The answer is, YES, we can balance the budget through cutting spending. Gene just doesn't want to cut down on the welfare state which is a totally different proposition.

Dragional

Most of the money to balance the budget per your suggestions comes from help to the poor, elderly and children. The $64 Billion cut in Education is not a cut it is shift to state and local taxes. The federal money for education is for help with math and reading which will still be needed by our schools and if the Fed cuts their support it will just increase local and state taxes. HOW IS THAT A SPENDING CUT?

Most of the reminder comes from cuts that help people that NEED the help:

$258 Billion in health to the poor
$206 Billion from Aid to low income families

You also forgot the COLA to Civilian retirement
You also ignored the increased Interest on the Growing National Debt.


As I said, you might as well follow that White Rabbit with the gold pocket watch down the hole. You would have our country cut help to those that have NOTHING so those with huge wealth can add more zeros to their net worth. Remember what Lazarus told the Rich Man in HELL!

Dragional

Do you realize that the deficit in 2006 of $574 Billion ADDED $28Billion in interest to the federal spending. Since GWB took office he has added $150 Billion per year to the interest payments simply because he did not keep the annual budget balanced like it was when he took office. By 2009, he will have increased the interest by $200 Billion per year. Do you understand that the increased spending on interest will not end when Bush leaves office-- It will continue EVERY year until we repay that debt! Do you understand that 40% of the debt is held by foreign investors and all the interest paid to them LEAVES our economy? Do you understand all the interest which is approaching $500 Billion per year buys us NOTHING? Not one thing! That is why the damage that Bush and the GOP controlled Congress has done will not go away with Bush leaving office or the change in control of Congress. We must change our policies-- We must FIRST balance the Budget and then begin repaying the debt which will require an annual surplus applied directly to the repayment of the national Debt.

Two things: Since my surplus was greater than $64 billion, I could even give Education back its money but I still wouldn't since I don't think the federal government should be involved. The states could do better and do it better in less.

Also, who decides who "needs" help?

The man who decries deficits is certainly okay with $458 BILLION being handed out to the poor. Do you know math, Gene?  How many people "need" it? Let's say 10% of the population. That's 30 million.  What's $458 BILLION divided by 30 million?  The answer is over $15,000 PER PERSON.  Are you seriously suggesting that 30 million people "NEED" $15,000 a year in free money from the government? And that's not counting state.

Again: You claimed we can't balance the budget without raising taxes.  I have proven that statement to be false. You CAN balance the budget. You just don't want to balance the budget.

You want other people to pay for the charity you believe in but don't contribute to yourself.

You say the deficit is bad. Okay. If it's so bad then why not quickly zap $458 billion of it right off the bat.  Or...wait, you must not think it's that bad now do you?

Dragional

Here is where you argument does not hold water.

The Congress the majority of Americans elected have created services and programs to provide help to segments of our population that need help. They have also enacted Social Security and Medicare. Our elected representatives have a responsibility to fully fund those same services and programs. You may want to cut off the poor of this country but that does not appear to the will of the people or they would elect representatives that would end these programs as you suggest. We can not balance the budget per your suggestions and we need to increase the federal revenue to fully fund what our elected representatives have approved!

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!

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!

SPIN THIS!!!

The Congress the majority of Americans elected have created services and programs to provide help to segments of our population that need help. They have also enacted Social Security and Medicare. Our elected representatives have a responsibility to fully fund those same services and programs. You may want to cut off the poor of this country but that does not appear to the will of the people or they would elect representatives that would end these programs as you suggest. We can not balance the budget per your suggestions and we need to increase the federal revenue to fully fund what our elected representatives have approved!

And here's where yours falls apart. Like Brad said who gets to decide who "needs" help? And "how" many of those that get it "now" really "need" it?

drmiler


" who gets to decide who "needs" help?" CONGRESS -- you idiot! They have decided by creating the various programs to help people. Now it is time to pay for those programs with tax revenue equal to our spending!


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!

SPIN THIS!!!

You sound just like Bush!

Gene: Let me say this as simply as possible:

YOU, claimed that you can't possibly balance the budget without raising taxes.  All I had to do is demonstrate that yes, you can. 

Social Security and Medicare have nothing to do with the discussion. They don't need to be touched to blaance the budget.

As for "will of the people" -- that has nothing to do with your assertion that we can't balance the budget. The will of the people doesn't seem to be to increase taxes either so that's pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

Gene - you are the worst debater I've ever come across. You can't even concede such a trivial point. We can balance the budget without raising taxes.  All you have to say is "Ok, yes, you can balance the budget without raising taxes but I don't support cutting those programs."  You can't seem to even do that.