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.

Dragional

You can mechanically balance the budget by saying CUT anything. I could have said let's STOP paying the $500 billion in interest on the debt. We could disband our military and balance the budget. I have said you can not balance the budget with CUTS that are ACCEPTABLE to the majority of Americans. Your cuts will never achieve the objective because only some very wealthy people would support the cuts in programs that most people consider essential.

You have said you balanced the budget without touching SS and Medicare. At this time NO General Fund tax revenue is being spent on these two programs. In fact in 2006 SS and Medicare had a SURPLUS of $224 Billion. When the Boomers retire in large numbers, the first problem will be for the Treasury to redeem the over $3 trillion worth of IOU's that have issued SS and Medicare trust funds. Then when the Trust Funds have been exhausted the General Fund will need to make up the difference between the SS and Medicare taxes and the benefits to the Boomers.

Your suggestion is as much of a solution as saying let's have China give us the money to balance our budget. We can cut the pork and we can beef up collections, but to complete the job we MUST increase taxes. We must first end tax cuts that were justified to return a SURPLUS that never existed. The reason Bush made for the tax cuts DID NOT EXIST. Just like the WMD in Iraq. The $ 5.7 Trillion of Surplus that Bush used to justify his tax cuts was another LIE!

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!

"Congress" should "not" be the ones who make that decision. We already have agencies in place to make those decisions. Either take congress out of the loop or shut the agencies down and save some money! Well over half of these "programs", are not even needed. And just an FYI... if I'm an idiot, then you sir are a complete moron!

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!

Now you're talking out of your "other" hole! Because your mouth be knowing better!

drmiler


"Congress" should "not" be the ones who make that decision. We already have agencies in place to make those decisions."

Congress is the ONLY part of our government that is authorized to spend money and raise taxes. You better reread our constitution! The agencies you talk about may make decisions as to who should be helped but the amount we spend and the rules that ALL agencies must use to help people are set by Congress. We are talking about the spending of federal tax dollars in this Blog and that is 100% in the hands of Congress. They pass the budget and pass those actual appropriations that allow federal money to be spent! They also pass the tax laws at the Federal level!

drmiler "Congress" should "not" be the ones who make that decision. We already have agencies in place to make those decisions." Congress is the ONLY part of our government that is authorized to spend money and raise taxes. You better reread our constitution! The agencies you talk about may make decisions as to who should be helped but the amount we spend and the rules that ALL agencies must use to help people are set by Congress. We are talking about the spending of federal tax dollars in this Blog and that is 100% in the hands of Congress. They pass the budget and pass those actual appropriations that allow federal money to be spent! They also pass the tax laws at the Federal level!

Then by your "own" words you shoot yourself in the foot. So like I said "Congress" should not be making the decisions and they aren't.

Yep, lets raise taxes on other people, just not on ourselves. Yep, that's what we need to do alright. Raise taxes. Raise taxes. Government has proven they are responsible with our tax dollars so lets give them more, just not from our pocket. It must come from someone else's pocket. Yep, that's the way to go. Forget cutting wasted spending, let's just raise taxes on other people.

No matter what you mental migots say, we need to balance the Budget and that is the resposnibility of Congress. There is nothing wrong with returning the ntax rates on the wealthy to the levels before the BUSH

No matter what you mental migots say, we need to balance the Budget and that is the resposnibility of Congress. There is nothing wrong with returning the ntax rates on the wealthy to the levels before the BUSH

No matter what you mental migots say, we need to balance the Budget and that is the resposnibility of Congress. There is nothing wrong with returning the ntax rates on the wealthy to the levels before the BUSH

No matter what you mental migots say, we need to balance the Budget and that is the resposnibility of Congress. There is nothing wrong with returning the ntax rates on the wealthy to the levels before the BUSH

No matter what you mental migots say, we need to balance the Budget and that is the resposnibility of Congress. There is nothing wrong with returning the ntax rates on the wealthy to the levels before the BUSH

No matter what you mental migots say, we need to balance the Budget and that is the resposnibility of Congress. There is nothing wrong with returning the ntax rates on the wealthy to the levels before the BUSH

No matter what you mental migots say, we need to balance the Budget and that is the resposnibility of Congress. There is nothing wrong with returning the ntax rates on the wealthy to the levels before the BUSH

No matter what you mental migots say, we need to balance the Budget and that is the resposnibility of Congress. There is nothing wrong with returning the ntax rates on the wealthy to the levels before the BUSH

No matter what you Bushies say, it is the responsibility of Congress to balance the budget and that will require a slight increase in the tax rates. Since there is no Surplus as Bush claimed, there is every justification to end his tax cuts for the wealthy!

I am tired of people who look at the bogus, broad bullet list of expenditure and then pretend that it is at all accurate. It's like me looking at Democrats who wanted to stop the Alaskan "bridge to nowhere" and say "HOW DARE YOU CUT OUT TRANSPORTATION BUDGET"!!!

I could look at the millions put into needless crap in the military, things like memorials, museums, kickbacks to the flunkies of Senate whores, etc., and when I proposed stopping it the Col would say "HOW DARE YOU CUT INTO DEFENSE!!!" It's facetious and sickening.

The Col wants us to look at a meaningless pie chart and pick what we whether we want to cut military spending, etc. In reality those charts don't mean a damned thing, because hundreds of billions of dollars are siphoned off in each of the categories for meaningless, pork barrel bullshit.

Could someone tell me, offhand, where the hundreds of millions of dollars we sent to Egypt every year are listed in the Col's rundown of expenditure? Let's just look at that one, particular thing. Where was all the money listed that we mailed off to Arafat under Clinton? Could someone tell me?