Ok, here's some further thoughts...

As to the charges in the original article -- dead on.  I wish I could say that I've never met or heard of a Democrat that is not interested in raising social spending come hell or highwater, but that wouldn't be fair as I would guess that there may be a few out there that would be acknowledge as fiscally conservative.  The problem is that they are far too few, and far too far between.

Most do -- as charged here -- want to raise social spending and they'll ignore deficits and other important expenditures to do so.  They'll rob from the national security side, they'll rob from the military, they'll cut back on other things a little, but in the end they'll fund all of their runaway spending by claiming to get more from Corporations (those big evil bastages!) and from the more fortunate in our society.  As if.

More bull-excrement.  The Comptroller General has written and said things that you misconstrue to claim that the facts are not what they are.  You can cry all you want that this isn't the case, but more revenue has come into the federal government coffers since Bush has been in office (including the time since his tax-cuts went into effect) than ever before.

Again, what you cry about is that there would be trillions more money there if not for the tax cuts, but you have absolutely no way of knowing or ever proving that such is the case because it is entirely possible that a lot of money would have sat locked up in long term investments or even short term investments that never was able to be counted as income and didn't get taxed in any way because of that.

Stop manipulating the data and admit the truth -- more revenue comes into the federal government now than ever.  That is a fact.

At least with you it was just a question he was ignoring.  Facts are what he most typically ignores.

There's plenty of fat in the budget:

You could cut most of the "income security" portion of the budget (14%) and balance the budget.  Or we could simply slow the rate in which we increase these programs and balance the budget in a few years.  And I'm not even talking about "Health" (Medicaid and what not 11% or the bloated DoE which is in that 13% "other")

The argument that Gene makes is the argument of greed.  It states that the government should confiscate my family's propery -- property that I worked very hard for -- to give to other individuals simply because those individuals have decided that they "need" it.  That's greed. Someone wanting something for nothing and using coercion to get it. 

As long as huge swaths of our budget are allocated to simply giving one citizen's property to another it's hard to take serious any complaints about deficit spending.

When the far left like Gene are ready to start trimming the welfare state, then I'll take his calls for a balanced budget seriously.

Dont feed the trolls!

Lets simplify this whole thing down.  The Federal Government should be managing its money like any responsible individual or business:

Spend less than you earn.  Save the extra for a rainy day or to reinvest down the road.

The key is to get the income first and only spend against the money you already have, not money you expect to make by the end of the year.  And don't spend up to your limit because if something goes wrong, you have no room to recover.  If you're overspending you cut until you are below your available money.  That's right, you cut.  Why?  Because you can't increase income quickly enough to react to anything at a tactical level.  You also don't depend on getting some windfall of cash to make up for previous fiscal mistakes.

Look at the pie chart Draginol posted.  What on that list are absolutely essential to the functioning of the government?  What can be reduced?  You don't have to cut one slice out entirely, you could probably shave a few percent here and there.  You do that until you are in the black again.  And then you run with that surplus until the debt is gone and there is a substantial rainy day fund.  Once you have a decent fund stored up then you look to see what costs you can increase safely.

The government must, like every other entity that handles money, live within its means.  If it's overspending, it has to cut back.  Just hiking taxes to get more money isn't a responsible method either.  Live within your means and then look at additional income.

Gene, are pie charts too complicated for you to undrestand?

14% of the budget is spent on "income security". That's a friendly description of welfare. Money given to individuals in order to ensure they have a certain level of income.  That's welfare.

You then have 11% that is mostly spent on Medicaid -- also welfare.

We have a welfare state.

Literally a quarter of the budget is dedicated to essentially transfering wealth from the most productive to the least productive. We spend more on welfare programs than defense and interest on the debt combined.