If you don't know what is spent, where it is spent, and what it is spent on... well... it sounds like you are just talking out of your ass, frankly.

What's a migot?



You should talk.

Bakerstrteet


I posted the Web site that shows the FEDERAL BUDGET. Just because I can not point to the subset where foreign Aid, which is less then 1% of the federal budget, is contained does not mean I do not understand where the money is being spent. If you have looked at the budget you know there is no place to cut $600 Billion without cutting things like Dragional has suggested. Most of the General Fund (not including Social Security or Medicare) is spent on Health and Human services ( the things Dragional wants to cut that Helps the POOR), Defense/ Homeland security and Interest on the debt. Thus unless you want to turn you back on the poor, eliminate our national defense or default on the $9 Trillion of debt, there is no $600 Billion to cut. To balance the budget will require a tax increase!

Ok, He wins, I will not debate this topic with col idiot type, because he has no concept of what the budget is or how it is used. Debating col political hack on this topic is like fighting a mindless child. Just one budget item not disputed on my list was over 500 billion dollars but back then he said the magic number was 700 billion. His figures move with the wind and his logic is missing. I usually wait until he has backed himself into a corner and drops the subject for another version of the same topic.

Actually, if you think about it... that is EXACTLY what that means. I'd be willing to bet that is just a drop in the bucket of things you don't know about the federal budget. Waste is something they DON'T want you to know about. That's why your big pie charts are so convenient for you.

Right there, Col, you just conceded the debate. Your initial challenge was for us to show where the budget could be cut, NOT where the budget could be cut to meet your narrow set of criteria.

SO why not acknowledge the good guys won this round, and go back and rephrase the question:

"How can you cut the budget without giving a lot of people's money to other people who did not earn it and do not deserve it?"

Our answers might be different.

1% seems like a negligable amount until you realize it is compounded and copied over and over throughout different branches of the government. Add them all up and I'd be willing to bet you could cut a LOT more than 600 billion.

P.S. Does anyone find it a tad dishonest that when the Col talks about raising taxes, it is to fix 600 billion, but when someone proposes a cut he compares it to the ENTIRE budget, not the 600 million?

I proposed cutting billions in aid and payoffs to other nations, but that is "less than 1% of the budget". Odd, were we trying to cut the whole budget, or 600 billion?. Maybe the percent it constitutes of the 600 billion is a bit more than he's comfortable to admit.

Like, when you look at the State Department, 5.1 billion is allocated to "other". Billion... with a 'b'. Anyone that looks at something, like, an almost 5 billion dollar budget for the "Agency for International Development" and still pretends we couldn't cut out 600 billion is either stupid or dishonest.

Bakerstreet, Gideon, Paladin77 et al

What you have demonstrated is a total distain for the poor, disabled and those that can not help themselves so the wealthy can pile up a little more in their accounts. WHAT YOU SHOW IS YOUR GREED! If as Gideon says you believe you are the “GOOD GUYS” you need to read Luke 16:19-31. There is NOTHING GOOD about what you would do to balance the budget. I have always said we should first cut things that are not needed to help either those that need help (Medicaid, Housing help, Food stamps for example) or to insure the continuation of our country defense, transportation, Law enforcement etc.). I believe we could cut 75 Billion if we cut ALL the pork and special interest spending. We might be able to collect another 100 Billion by better enforcement of existing tax laws. However we are about $600 Billion out of balance and that will not provide the surplus to begin repaying the debt. Thus to BOTH balance the budget and begin repaying the $9 Trillion in debt we need about $700 Billion per year. If we end the Iraq war we could save another $100 billion. HOWEVER NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT THE MUSTARD, TO COME UP WITH A BALANCED BUDGET AND TO BEGIN TO REPAY THE DEBT, WE WILL NEED MORE TAX REVENUE! Time to giver back the Bush tax cuts that was to be paid from the BIG SURPLUS that Bush said existed. The problem is there was NO SURPLUS. IT must be at the same place as the WMD! YOUR BOY LIES!

I believe we could cut 75 Billion if we cut ALL the pork and special interest spending

And "you" live in a dream world!

drmiler

Whatrdo you think we could cut in Pork and Special Interest spending?

Col Gene: Passionate advocate of Tammany Hall style politics. Thieves and liars always try to swaddle themselves in the self-righteous cause of poverty. Oddly enough, though, they are always the ones who whine about how bad the poor have it. If these programs were successful, it seems odd that the poor would be suffering so much.

It's convenient, because government charity is 10 cents for the poor, 90 cents in operational costs. We call charities that function like that a sham in the private arena.

Col,

You are so far out in left field you have no clue as to reality. Jesus commanded the CHURCH to care for the poor and needy. Where does separation of church and state come in, Col?

You are in no position to lecture me on Scripture, Col. You use it selectively and COMPLETELY out of context. You're as bad a preacher as you are a politician!

What sort of person, how utterly naive or dishonest, would it take to equate paying taxes with charity? Does anyone, anywhere in America believe that when they mail in their taxes they are actually giving money to the poor? Hardy friggin har.

Jesus did say 'render unto Caesar', but in a Democracy WE ARE CAESAR. Soliciting donations at gunpoint isn't charity, it is a mugging. I wouldn't feel like I had committed a charitable act if someone broke into my house and stole my TV, nor do I think taxation is charity.

Bakerstreet

I do not believe there is anything like 90% overhead in government programs. That is an unsubstantiated statement to make people like you believe we should end them. As to the need, I suggest you look at the ways people live in some of our largest cities. Look at the conditions in Texas and LA where the storms unveiled the abject poverty. I know there are many reasons that people need help. We need to encourage people that CAN do for themselves to do more. However some do work at jobs our society does not value enough to pay a living wage. In some cases people have physical or mental problems that make them need help. For you and anyone else to take the position it is more important for the wealthy to pay less tax so they can pile their wealth up a little more and cut the benefits of people that need help more clearly then anything else shows the type of person they are. The assistance of providing medical care under Medicaid or the food stamps to the hungry. Health care to children and the old. A place to live under section 8. Heat to the poor and elderly in winter. Anyone that considers this help less important then to have people with Millions of Dollars pay a little more in taxes is disgusting. Today a report that documents that 50% of Americans live Pay check to Pay check. In some cases that is because people make poor choices in the spending. However in many cases it is simply that they do not earn enough to pay the cost to live!

I suggest the multi millionaires who are among the top 10% try living for a year on the average wage of the Bottom 10%. That might give them a different perspective of what it is like to be POOR in America!