Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on October 30, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics

This is the cry of most Republicans and some Democrats. It is time to stop making this generalized statement and take an HONEST look at the Federal Budget. To help with that please take a look at the following Web Site: www.thebudgetgraph.com . It will give you a very clear picture of just where the Federal Government is spending YOUR tax dollars.

I have looked at this issue as well at the major issues that face our country and will impact spending for the foreseeable future. The objective was to see just where the spending cuts can be made to solve the nation’s fiscal problems.

First we need to understand ALL Federal spending falls into one of two types. One is “mandatory spending” and the other is termed “discretionary spending”. Both types have been increasing at a fast pace. When we talk about cutting the budget we must understand the items which are mandatory are NOT subject to cutting without violating promises that have been made by the Government of the United States. The three biggest elements in this category are Interest on the National Debt, Medicare and Social Security. In round numbers that mandatory spending is about $2 Trillion Dollars per year.

The other category is discretionary spending and is made up of elements that CAN be cut without violating the promises made by our country. The amount of that type of spending is about $800 Billion per year. If you fail to look at what is included in that $800 Billion one can come to the conclusion we can solve our fiscal problems by simply cutting this discretionary spending. Now it is time to take a look at the budget graph I referenced.

You will see the largest element in that category which comprises more then half of discretionary spending is National Defense. Another large component is Homeland Security. Help for the poor for Food Stamps and Medicaid rounds out the major items. These three make up MOST of the discretionary spending.

Let’s take a look at the largest spending items within the budget and the prospect for cutting them in the future.

Mandatory Items:

Social Security- this will increase at a growing rate as the Baby Boomers retire which will start in February 2008.

Medicare – This will increase for the same reason as Social Security plus the addition of the Prescription Drug Program and the increasing cost of health care. This will increase far more then Social Security.

Interest – This will continue to increase so long as we add to the National Debt. The national debt on Sept 30, 2006 was $8.5 Trillion. The National Debt on September 30, 2007 was $9 Trillion. Despite the lie Bush told that the annual deficit was $168 Billion that actual amount we added to the total debt was $500 Billion in FY 2007. Go to the U.S. Treasury web site for the actual amounts to the penny.

Discretionary Items:

National Defense – That will increase substantially because of the increase in the Active Duty strength, pay increases and because of the replacement of most of the equipment for the ground forces.

VA- This will expand in a major way to pay for the injured veterans from the Iraq war.

Homeland Security - That will need to increase as we build the border fence and add the needed border guards. The new equipment and new ID cards and systems will also require added spending. The Coast Guard will see an increase in spending as will federal law enforcement and intelligence services.

Medicaid - As more and more people are becoming eligible and medical cost increase, the cost of this program will increase.

Pell Grants – The lower interest rates for student loans will increase the overall cost of this program.

Federal Road and Bridge maintenance – This will increase given the condition of the ageing roads and bridges.

The above are the areas that surely will require added spending. These items make up the BULK of the overall spending. When you look at the magnitude of these items it will not be a surprise that spending will continue to increase. I would like to have ANYONE provide specifics as to where and by how much the so called “spending cuts” can take place that will both balance the budget and then provide a REAL Surplus to be used to pay down the over $9 Trillion dollar national debt.


The time has passed for statements like - “the problem is our Spending”. We need to provide specifics areas and amounts where spending can be CUT to come up with the money needed to balance the budget and begin paying down the debt! I believe the chance of spending cuts solving our fiscal problems to be about the same as winning the Power Ball Lottery! Remember, mandatory spending is just that!

Comments (Page 2)
11 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Oct 30, 2007

Reply By: ParaTed2k Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2007
I thought it was your position that Prs. Clinton was able to balance the budget. Are you saying now that it was impossible for him to do it, even with so much less in the treasury?


I said nothing about Clinton. I supported the Ways and Means Committee proposal to cut taxes for 91 Million middle class taxpayers and add 4.5% surtax for people with incomes above $500,000. I support a Balanced Budget and to begin repaying the National Debt at the rate of $150-200 Billion per year!
on Oct 30, 2007




Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2007

There people need help and we as a society have a responsibility to help those that have so little.

Why the federal government? If you want to help people, that is great, but do it through charity and not taxes.


I support charities however the needs of the low income Americans FAR exceeds the help available from just charities. That is the facts and I support helping those that need help especially children! The shift in wealth under Bush needs to be reversed and we need to balance the budget!
on Oct 30, 2007
Hey gene why don't you start by refusing to cash your military pension check? If you are covered by the V.A. you should also turn this down and get your own insurance. Refuse to cash any tax returns you get too. then by example you can lead others to do the same.
on Oct 30, 2007
Of course you see nothing wrong it; you liberals have no problem spending other people’s money. (We have already spent the money- the issue is paying for it) People have a choice to better themselves, and relying on government handouts only creates more of a dependent society. These people need to get out and better themselves, and stop leeching off other people. Many have jobs that simply do not pay a living wage. Anyone doing that work will not be able to provide all that is needed for their families. IF we want to rely only on income from work, then we must have jobs for 100% and the jobs must pay enough for every family to provide for their basic needs including health care. Such is NOT the case. Many of the new jobs Bush talks about pay between $9-$12 per hour. That is between $18-24,000 per year!

I believe we should help our people So long as they work, assuming they are physically able to work and can find work. I see nothing wrong with asking those with huge incomes to shoulder a little more of the burden given the way they have benefited. Health care for children, Food stamps and Health care for the poor benefits our society and balancing the budget will mean a stronger future for everyone in our country. Rolling back the tax cuts for the top 10% is the best way to get these things done. T No one can make a case that the top 10% can not afford top return to the tax rates on the 1990's. They may not want to pay more in taxes but the higher taxes will not cause them or their families any harm and those higher taxes will help those in need and the financial health of the country!
on Oct 30, 2007
NONE of you has shown where we will cut $700 Billion per year from the budget to solve our fiacal problems. What is the Problem?
on Oct 30, 2007
I said nothing about Clinton.


Not in this thread, but are you now denying that you have stated in other threads that Clinton balanced the budget? If you think he did with Billions less in the treasury, then how can you now say that it's impossible?
on Oct 30, 2007

 

That is the facts and I support helping those that need help especially children!

That is not "fact".  Most of the poor are just lazy and leech off the government, and don't want to help themselves.  Charity could easily cover people who genuinely need help.

 

IF we want to rely only on income from work, then we must have jobs for 100% and the jobs must pay enough for every family to provide for their basic needs including health care. Such is NOT the case. Many of the new jobs Bush talks about pay between $9-$12 per hour. That is between $18-24,000 per year!

And?  Many people live just fine off those wages, the problem is you think people should have way more than what they need.  Why should people who are successful have their income shifted to someone else, there is absolutely no reason for it.

 

I believe we should help our people So long as they work, assuming they are physically able to work and can find work.

Gene, go to your local welfare/food stamp office and tell me how many of the people going in and out of there are physically able to work?  Then get back to me.

 

I see nothing wrong with asking those with huge incomes to shoulder a little more of the burden given the way they have benefited.
 

As I said, you liberals have no problem spending other peoples money.  Successful Americans should not be forced to pay for the laziness and irresponsiblity of others.

 

Rolling back the tax cuts for the top 10% is the best way to get these things done. T No one can make a case that the top 10% can not afford top return to the tax rates on the 1990's.

Raising taxes on successful Americans is not going to help anyone else.  We don't need any more social programs, and that is just what you are proposing, but you have one class of people paying for it.  BS!

 

NONE of you has shown where we will cut $700 Billion per year from the budget to solve our fiacal problems. What is the Problem?

We have shown how you can cut the budget, the problem is you don't listen.  You still haven't answered questions posed to you.

You are a socialist gene, plain and simple.

 

 

on Oct 30, 2007
Not in this thread, but are you now denying that you have stated in other threads that Clinton balanced the budget? If you think he did with Billions less in the treasury, then how can you now say that it's impossible?

It is a FACT - we had a balanced budget in the 2000 without counting the Surplus in Social Security and Medicare! You may not like it but we did, the first year Bush took over we returned to deficits and have had one EVERY year he was President. In fact he will have added MORE debt then ANY OTHER PRESIDENT! You can not cut taxes and increase spending without creating a deficit. Both Reagan and Bush 43 proved that!
on Oct 30, 2007
Any Family with an income below $22,000 NEEDS HELP!


Piss off, Col. Although my income now exceeds that, it hasn't always. And I truly resent people like you telling me what I "need"!
on Oct 30, 2007

There you go again, you say that it's a FACT Clinton balanced the budget, but you now say that it can't be done now without raising taxes.  Are you so blind you can't even see your own blatant contradiction?

 

Any Family with an income below $22,000 NEEDS HELP!

Ok, so families in this income bracket need help.  Since when is it the government's job to steal money from someone else in order to "help" them.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for the government to be charitable.  Charity is a private decision. 

Where you a total Communist during the Cold War too?  That must have been rough, training to nuke Communists when you were one yourself.

on Oct 31, 2007

Reply By: Gideon MacLeish Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Any Family with an income below $22,000 NEEDS HELP!


Piss off, Col. Although my income now exceeds that, it hasn't always. And I truly resent people like you telling me what I "need"!

I am not telling YOU anything. I know with a family income at that level almost ALL people need help.

YOU PISS OFF you selfish idiot!
on Oct 31, 2007

Reply By: ParaTed2k Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2007
There you go again, you say that it's a FACT Clinton balanced the budget, but you now say that it can't be done now without raising taxes. NO it can not be balanced without increasing taxes. Look at my Blog!

The way the budget was balanced in 2000 is because of the Bush 41 Tax increase and the drastic cut in military spending coupled with almost a decade of economic growth. That economic growth took place WITH THE HIGHER taxes that were in place during the Clinton years.
on Oct 31, 2007
I am not telling YOU anything. I know with a family income at that level almost ALL people need help.


That's pure BS gene, and you know it.  I lived off less than that by myself before WITHOUT  any government assistance. 
on Oct 31, 2007



Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2007
I am not telling YOU anything. I know with a family income at that level almost ALL people need help.


"That's pure BS gene, and you know it. I lived off less than that by myself before WITHOUT any government assistance."


I do not know where you live but in the two locations where I own a home a family CAN NOT LIVE on $20,000 per year. Rents are $900 per month with utilities of another $150 per month. Families earning that amount need help and they will never have $8,000 for health insurance. YOU are the one full of BS. If you are a person with incomes anything like this and support Bush, you are a complete IDIOT!
on Oct 31, 2007
The way the budget was balanced in 2000 is because of the Bush 41 Tax increase and the drastic cut in military spending coupled with almost a decade of economic growth. That economic growth took place WITH THE HIGHER taxes that were in place during the Clinton years.


Again, you ignore the fact that there is more in the treasury now than when Clinton was in office. Why do you claim that Clinton could balance the budget, but now that the treasury is up to $700 Billion it just can't be done?

Either Clinton DIDN'T actually balance the budget, or it CAN be done now. Either way, your contradictions expose your ignorance.
11 Pages1 2 3 4  Last