CUT SPENDING!

Cut entitlement programs, welfare, foreign aid.......too many to list.

Island Dog

What entitlement programs and by how much?

Cut what welfare and by how much?

To balance the budget it will take almost $600 Billion in cuts. Then to begin paying down the $9 trillion of the National Debt we will need another $100-150 Billion for the next 25 years.

I bet there are NO combination of cuts that will be acceptable to the majority of Americans that will total $700 plus Billion per year!

Most of them.




Cut welfare almost compeltely. 


What do you suggest be cut? It seems to me you are just looking for excuses to raise taxes.





Col, a great part of Americans are not intelligent enough to balance thier own checkbook, much less dictace how the U.S. economy should be run. 

IslandDog

“Col, a great part of Americans is not intelligent enough to balance their own checkbook, much less dictate how the U.S. economy should be run.”

I agree!! They include Congress and the President!

By Entitlement Programs do you mean Social Security and Medicare? If that is what you mean you have lost your mind! I guess welfare includes Medicaid. If that is your suggestion to balance the budget I suggest to “Bay at the Moon!”

I ask again.  What would you cut?  My guess is you would do what you can to increase entitlement programs and make the rich pay for it.

Island Dog

The current annual budget deficit, which was $574 Billion in FY 2006, does not have one cent of Social Security or Medicare expenditures in it. In fact both Social Security and Medicare are currently running a Surplus. Go back and look again you can not solve the deficit by cutting something that is not causing the deficit!

Virtually every government program can be cut. We cannot afford runaway government spending whatever they will. We should start by eliminating several government departments (really, Col Gene, I've already made this list...google is your friend, and I'm not going to do your homework for you), and we should cut every governmental department by a minimum of 10%, a maximum of 70%. Welfare, in my opinion, should receive the 70% cut, with the 30% reserve being used for "safety net" assistance in areas with disproportionately high continuing unemployment or other emergency situations. At the federal level, the Department of Education should be done away with entirely. This is just the beginning of a very long list.

Gideon

I guess you mean defense, Intelligence, Homeland security, Medicaid, interest etc. If you really believe these things can or will be cut as you suggest you too live in a dream world.

Gidion

I took a look at the budget go to http://www.federalbudget.com/

There are 24 categories of spending listed. If you were to cut 10% from the first 11 departments you would cut about $10 Billion

# 12 Homeland Security will need more money to secure the border and add the guards needed. That will most likely go up $5 Billion.

# 13 Energy 10% cut 4 Billion

#14 justice They will need more not less to deal with terrorist threats.

#15 Housing 10% cut 5 Billion

#17 Labor cut 10% 5 Billion

#18 Transportation cut 10% 7 billion

# 19 veterans That will go up to deal with tens of thousands of Iraq War Vets. That could go up $10 Billion


# 20 Pers Mgmt That is pensions and can not be cut.


# 21 Agricultural Cut 10% 9 Billion


# 22 DOD That will go up- Troop Surge, increase in active military by 90,000 and replace most of the equipment Up $50 Billion

# 23 Health Increasing population will require MORE not Less- No cut possible


# 24 Interest That will go up about $40 Billion over next two years due to higher debt and interest rates.


That is an increase of about $44 Billion. People who claim they will cut $600-700 Billion from the budget have not looked at what makes up the budget. Try again!

Col,

All complete and utter BS, and you know it, or you wouldn't spend article after article rehashing the same garbage. The government is one massive waste machine.

You really think over $9000 per man, woman and child is a cost effective government? WHO is in the dream world?

What I am sick of is classless losers spewing on about how Prs. Bush spends too much money, then challenges everyone else to come up with the cuts we would recommend. Gideon took up your challenge, you then showed him why there couldn't be cuts to those programs... then you defended increases in some of the programs.

ColGene, I challenge YOU to tell us what cuts YOU would make and where.  If all your recommendations are about increases, then my friend, you are no better at fiscal responsibility than Prs. Bush.

 

Already had a post on this:

http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=139446

It is not hard to balance the budget by cutting some spending.  You don't even have to eliminate social security or touch defense.

that is his point...he doesn't want to cut anything, just raise taxes on everyone but himself.

Col is trying to create the illusion that the only way to solve this "problem" is to raise taxes.  I mean raise taxes on only one class of people that is.

Have any of you looked at WHAT makes up the federal Budget?

I have said I would cut all the Pork and I would look programs that are not effective in helping people. I believe we could cut $50 Billion from these things.

I also believe we could look at enforcement and try and make sure that the tax laws are being enforced. From what I have read and studies I looked at when writing my book I believe we could NET after increased enforcement costs another $100 Billion.

That however does not solve the problem. We need $600 plus Billion just to balance the budget and STOP the debt from growing any larger. Then we need added money to begin paying it down.

Most of the money is going for Defense, Interest on the debt and Health and human services (help for the very poor) and pensions that people have earned. Add Veterans, Homeland security and you have 90% of the Budget. NONE of these areas can be cut. How can you cut the almost $450 Billion in interest? How do you cut Defense and Homeland security? How do you cur veteran’s affairs? These areas will need MORE not LESS money. We have cut the budgets of National Health that protects us from disease. WE have cut money from food inspections and look at the results. We have cut grants to help find cures for disease. We had a $574 Billion dollar deficit in 2006 and Social Security and Medicare are still running a Surplus. What will happen when we need to provide funding for Social Security and Medicare with a $500 Billion dollar Interest cost every year?

You should all listen to the Comptroller General-- He has documented the irresponsible way Bush and the Congress have been managing the fiscal affairs of our country. We have NEVER fought a major war without providing a temporary tax increase to pay the added cost. Bush just added it to the debt! It is time you accept there is no combination of spending cuts that will produce anything like the $600-700 Billion dollars needed EACH year to solve our fiscal problems. We may be able to get $150 Billion as I have suggested above but that leaves a long way to go and that will require MORE tax Dollars.

I have still not scene one of you Bush Supporters explain WHY we have tax cuts to return the Surplus Bush said was the reason for the tax cuts, since like WMD, there was NO SURPLUS?

You have not "seen" it because you refuse to look at anything other than your one-sided liberal/socialist outlook on everything.  Tax cuts have been explained to your several times over, but you just keep repeating the same rhetoric over and over all the while calling peope blind supporters of Bush.

IslandDog

The explanations do not hold water. The REASON Bush gave for the tax cuts were to return a SURPLUS that does not exist. The Comptroller General had documented that the added tax revenue from new investment caused by the tax cuts only covers 1/2 the revenue lost from the tax cuts. Thus you have not answered the question. The answer is that since there was NO SURPLUS the tax cuts should have been phased out the way Greenspan and O'Neil recommended!

LOL.

Col do you realize putting something in bold doesn't make you right.  Go back through the years and read the posts about tax cuts from people other than yourself.  You will find your answer there. 

IslandDog

I have looked at what makes up the budget and NOTHING that has been suggested is either possible or will do the job. Most of what makes up the budget are things like National Defense, Interest or entitlements that CAN NOT be cut. In fact Interest and national defense will continue to increase! The truth is people who say balancing the budget is simply a matter of cutting Federal Spending do not know what they are talking about! We can and should the cut Pork but that will not come close to what is required! Anyone that continues to claim that we can balance the budget by cutting spending has not looked at what makes up our spending! This is what makes up the federal spending:


I took a look at the budget go to http://www.federalbudget.com/

There are 24 categories of spending listed. If you were to cut 10% from the first 11 departments you would cut about $10 Billion

# 12 Homeland Security will need more money to secure the border and add the guards needed. That will most likely go up $5 Billion.

# 13 Energy 10% cut 4 Billion

#14 justice They will need more not less to deal with terrorist threats.

#15 Housing 10% cut 5 Billion

#17 Labor cut 10% 5 Billion

#18 Transportation cut 10% 7 billion

# 19 veterans That will go up to deal with tens of thousands of Iraq War Vets. That could go up $10 Billion


# 20 Pers Mgmt That is pensions and can not be cut.


# 21 Agricultural Cut 10% 9 Billion


# 22 DOD That will go up- Troop Surge, increase in active military by 90,000 and replace most of the equipment Up $50 Billion

# 23 Health Increasing population will require MORE not Less- No cut possible


# 24 Interest That will go up about $40 Billion over next two years due to higher debt and interest rates.


That is an increase of about $44 Billion. People who claim they will cut $600-700 Billion from the budget have not looked at what makes up the budget. Try again!

ColGene, it has been proven every time it has been tried, tax cuts increase (not decrease) money collected in federal taxes. The government has MORE money, not less than before the tax cuts.

Now, to your answer to my challenge. You say you would cut pork, I agree, so would I. However, it isn't Prs. Bush who packs a bill with pork, so why do you refuse to put the responsibility on his shoulders. Pork is a huge problem, one that rests completely on the shoulders of the members of the House and Senate.

Next, you refuse to cut whole departments. The dept of Education has no constitutional basis, so why not cut it. The VA medical system has NEVER worked. If it was disolved and our health care providers merely billed the VA for our care, we would get better care and the government would save billions. It wouldn't take an increase in budget if the border patrol were just allowed to actually DO THEIR JOBS. So far all we see is that the agency is more interested in prosecuting agents and giving drug smugglers a free pass.

You talk about how nothing can be cut, but EVERY department and program is a bloated beauracracy, so the first thing that should be done is to have outside, private sector accounting firms audit every department's books... and cut out every position and department that only exists to perpetuate itself. While that is going on, the authority of members of Congress to add pork to a bill needs to be restricted. Here's a simple rule of thumb to start with... if the program only benefits a single state... it has NO constitutional basis, so it gets NO federal money.

But all this is meaningless to you, since all you really care about is sticking it to anyone who you think is more rich than you... which makes you part of the problem. Taxes aren't meant to be a tool for social engineering. You make more than the average American, yet you don't think you should be taxed more. You think that everyone who makes more than you should pay more... I say that anyone who whines on and on about how the "Rich" aren't paying their share should automatically be taxed at 50%... if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, you should just shut it.

ParaTedf2K

I have balanced more budgets then most people and I understand what is needed. The issue is very simple. Our government which includes BOTH Congress and the President have approved a level of spending that they have not funded. You may want to cut out the VA and have no medical care for the Vets that have been injured serving the will of the President and Congress. I do not agree with you.

When the government we have elected approves a level of spending we must insure that the tax revenue is equal to the approved spending. That is what I want done. That will require higher tax levels then are in place today. Bush cut taxes predicated on his claim that we were being over taxed and that we had to return a SURPLUS that he claimed would be $5.7 Trillion in the ten year period from 2002- 2011. There was NO Surplus and we were not being overtaxed at the old rates as Bush Claimed. We need to return to the tax rates before the Bush cuts and see how close we are to a balanced budget, If the budget is still not balanced we must look at cutting the budget or increasing revenue to bring out approved spending and tax revenue into balance. We also need to begin repaying the $9 Trillion in debt because that is the ONLY way the annual interest will be reduced. The least harm to our economy and the majority of Americans is to ask those that have been able to acquire substantial wealth to pay a little more. We do not need anything close to 50% but returning to 39% on incomes over $200,000 would help. Increasing taxes on middle income working families will reduce spending and cause hardship on these group. It has nothing to do with wanting to punish the wealthy but what is BEST for the country overall.

Should I simply keep reposting this link with 40 responses to it that demonstrates that yes, people have looked, found ways to balance the budget every time you try to pretend that argument hasn't been crushed?

http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=139446

 

A minimal tax will not cause "hardship" on the middle class.  They just might not be able to afford that extra iPod or HDTV next year.  You keep advocating taxing one class of people for "the good of the country", that's not the way it works, but you don't seem to understand that.

All this post does is attempt to make excuses for taxing the rich.  Nothing else.

IslandDog The explanations do not hold water.

Maybe in "your" fantasy land they don't hold water.

I have balanced more budgets then most people and I understand what is needed.

And it would seem that "only" you have this knowledge? Seems to me that there are "quite" a few others might know better? Or is that beyond your comprehension?

drmiler

Well given the fact when Bush took over he was given a balanced budget and he has added $3 trillion on NEW debt in 6 years, he is not one that knows how to balance the budget!

Dragional

I used your site and the problem, given assumption that reflect reality such as that Military spending will increase, the deficit got worse. Nothing you have said alters the fact that we have approved spending of about $600 Billion MORE then we are taxing!

I also noticed the model you sighted only counts NET Interest. That means it does not consider the interest we are paying to Social Security and Medicare. Last year we borrowed $224 Billion from them and had to pay interest on that as well. You model ignores that interest. It also assumes that inflation does not exist if you use the no increase option. That is not realistic since so many of the items contain salaries that will go up at least by inflation. If you select the 10% option that is far above inflation rates we have been experiencing.

Bottom Line—We have NO chance to balance the budget simply with any combination of cuts that are possible or would be acceptable to the American Voter. Much of the budget can not be cut like the interest. Many other elements would not be acceptable to the majority of Voters. Time for those with most of the wealth to pony up a little more and invest is a sound financial future. If we allow the situation to get too far out of control, the remedy will be a bitter pill for the wealthy and not so wealthy in our country!