You Can't Balance the Budget By Increasing Social Spending

Sure!  They figure to spend their way to a balanced budget!

It is the same argument as the Minimum wage.  if $7/hr is good, why not $10 or $20, or even $100/hr?  That surely would be better and cause no harm.

The Bush tax cuts from 2001 -2010 will cut federal revenue by $2.3 Trillion.
(www.cjt.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf) 70% will go to the wealthy. During that same period the National Debt will increase about $5 Trillion. Thus, the increase in the debt is about 1/2 because of lost tax revenue and 1/2 because of increased spending. When you look at what we have increased spending on you will find most of the increase is for Interest on the Growing Debt, the Iraq war and homeland security. For those that say the answer is to cut spending, tell me how you would make any real cuts in the Interest, National defense or homeland security?

The Bush tax cuts from 2001 -2010 will cut federal revenue by $2.3 Trillion.

*cough* bull-excrement *cough*

It has been proven time and again that thanks to Bush's tax cuts revenue for the federal government increased much more rapidly.  Bush's tax cuts resulted in increased federal revenue, but you and your liberal friends can't count it that way because you are counting on money that doesn't exist -- money you expect to get from those more fortunate (i.e., harder working, or smarter than you, which, uh, in your case isn't difficult to come across as that would be about 99.99{infinitely repeating} percent of the population) than you.

Counting on money that doesn't exist unless and until the people that control the money and/or assets do something that would make the money count as income doesn't work.  Never has, never will.  But it doesn't stop those on the liberal side of the aisle from assuming that they can tap it for revenue for the fed.  Not going to happen, but they promise that they can do it.  Promise that they can find a way to make the rich and more fortunate pay more of their 'fair' (again, *cough* bull-excrement *cough*) share.

You'll never learn that, and likely neither will most on the liberal side of the aisle.  They'll continue to count chickens that are so far from hatching they aren't even in the embryonic stages yet (perhaps that is why they focus so much on embryonic stem cell hopes, who knows...)

That's enough for this part of the argument, more in a minute I guess...

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.

Reply By: terpfan1980Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007The Bush tax cuts from 2001 -2010 will cut federal revenue by $2.3 Trillion.*cough* bull-excrement *cough*It has been proven time and again that thanks to Bush's tax cuts revenue for the federal government increased much more rapidly. Bush's tax cuts resulted in increased federal revenue, but you and your liberal friends can't count it that way because you are counting on money that doesn't exist -- money you expect to get from those more fortunate (i.e., harder working, or smarter than you, which, uh, in your case isn't difficult to come across as that would be about 99.99{infinitely repeating} percent of the population) than you.

NOT TRUE. The Comptroller General has proven just the opposite. The same argument was made by Reagan. He claimed that his tax cuts would grow the economy to BOTH replace the lost revenue from the tax cuts and pay for his added spending. He said that his tax cuts would cause GDP to grow at 6% per year. Problem was that we only got a sustained growth rate after the Reagan tax cuts of about 3% and that lower GDP growth caused an increase of $3 Trillion in the Debt during the 8 years of Reagan. Bush tried the SAME thing and his economic policies has increased GDP but not enough to replace the lost tax revenue and pay for his higher spending Bush will add $4 Trillion to the Debt. Bush and Reagan using the same economic policy called Voodoo Economics have added $7 Trillion to the debt and increased the annual interest on the debt by $350 Billion per year!

I notice gene you ignore the question posed in my original article and start with your usual nonsense about the tax cuts. If you are interested in balancing the budget, why would you support someone like the democrats I mentioned above, who will massively increase spending on social programs?

Once again, we should start with massive budget cuts and reorganization of the federal government. The overwhelming majority of government is filled with waste, unneeded services, and just plain bureaucracy.

Reply By: Island DogPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007I notice gene you ignore the question posed in my original article and start with your usual nonsense about the tax cuts. If you are interested in balancing the budget, why would you support someone like the democrats I mentioned above, who will massively increase spending on social programs?Once again, we should start with massive budget cuts and reorganization of the federal government. The overwhelming majority of government is filled with waste, unneeded services, and just plain bureaucracy.

The vast majority of the budget is not waste. It is National and homeland defense and Interest on the debt. It is Social Security and Medicare payments. These are not waste. There is waste especially in Iraq and with the contractors the Bush administration has hired. The democrats have said any new spending will be offset by cuts in other areas or new revenue. What Bush and the GOP have done is increased spending FAR MORE then under any democrat administration and then put it all on the debt so we can pay interest to China!

NOT TRUE. The Comptroller General has proven just the opposite.

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.

What Bush and the GOP have done is increased spending FAR MORE then under any democrat administration and then put it all on the debt so we can pay interest to China!

More bull-excrement.  Now, on this one I'll give you a partial pass.  Bush has spent more than anyone in a long time, and yes the GOP went along with much of it, but at the same time some of the biggest expenditures were made with a hell of a lot of help from the Democrat side of the aisle, so don't be laying all the blame for all of the spending entirely at the feet of the GOP or even W.  There's plenty of blame to go around for everyone that is in Washington, D.C. period.

I notice gene you ignore the question

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

Here are two facts. $8 of the $9 Trillion dollars of debt was added while a Republican Conservative was President. Reagan and GWB are responsible for $7 Trillion dollars of the $9 trillion of debt. Please do not tell me about the democrats as BIG SPENDERS!

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.

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.

For the health of all involved, nothing that Gene says should ever be taken seriously.  It would just lead to fiscal ruin and a socialist state the likes of which have never been seen before.

*cough* bull-excrement *cough*

Dont feed the trolls!

Ugh...yes it is.




Yeah right gene.  The massive amount of spending they have been proposing will not be offset by cutting the budget you say can't be cut much.




What do you call massive social programs like government health care.  Republicans aren't the greatest, but they sure aren't moving towards a a socialist state.

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.

Reply By: terpfan1980Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007When the far left like Gene are ready to start trimming the welfare state, then I'll take his calls for a balanced budget seriously.For the health of all involved, nothing that Gene says should ever be taken seriously. It would just lead to fiscal ruin and a socialist state the likes of which have never been seen before.

We are not running a welfare state! I am not sure what you think is welfare. For the most part welfare reform has eliminated most of the unneeded welfare and the help that we do provide is for those that NEED help.

Social security and Medicare are not welfare. They are programs that were developed to provide a safety net and pay 75% of medical costs for the retired. We all worked and paid payroll taxes so the previous generation could receive Social Security and Medicare with the promise that the next generation would provide similar programs to us.

Even if some misguided people consider Social Secretary and Medicare as welfare, the reality is that not ONE CENT of the $9 Trillion Dollar National debt came from either Social Security or Medicare. Both these programs have produced a SURPLUS thru 2007. Welfare is NOT why we are in the financial trouble. Since 1981 we have spent MORE every year except 2000 then we taxed and allowed the balance to pile up into a mountain of debt that took the Interest we MUST pay every year from about $80 Billion to almost $500 Billion every year. Interest on the debt is the budget element that has increased MORE then any other single item since 1981! That interest does not provide for any of our needs today. It pays for the irresponsible actions of the past and will continue until we REPAY that debt!

Reply By: ZoombaPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007Lets 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.

If you can not cut your spending enough to balance your budget you go out and get a better job or a second job to increase your income. That is where we are in this country today. Spending Cuts will not balance the budget and provide the money to repay the $9 Trillion in debt! We must increase our income along with cutting spending in ways that do not jeopardize our needs or fail to keep the promises we have made!

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.

Just because a person has a high income does not mean they are MORE productive. Look at the salaries of CEO's whose companies have lost money or performed poorly. Look at paying baseball players $200 Million. That has NOTHING to do with productivity. Income security helps very low income people who spend all of that money which means it returns to the economy. Medicaid also goes to those that have very little and NEED the help. If you are suggestion we should cut off Medicaid and income security so we do not have to ask the wealthy to pay a little more you are misguided.

It is an illusion that all the upper income people are so productive. I have scene many small business people CHEET on their taxes to become wealthy. I guess that is productive. When a person receives hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in income that is not because they are productive in many cases. Some make that level of income because of clever ideas i.e. Bill Gates. However just hard work does not justify some of the incomes we see being paid to corporate executives.

People making large amounts of money for what ever reason can afford to pay a little more and give up a tax cut they should NEVER have received! They were not being OVER TAXED as Bush claimed because there was NO SURPLUS. In addition when the idiot president claimed we had the phantom surplus, he ignored the fact that in 2001 we had a national debt of $5.7 Trillion Dollars. Until we repaid that debt, even if the Surplus was real, we did not have a surplus UNTIL we repaid our debt!

Wrong. High paid ballplayers are paid their salaries because of the value they bring to the team. That value includes extra butts in the seats, extra TV revenue, and extra merchandise sales from crazed fans who purchase everything with the player's number on it.

Yeah, it sucks that Alex Rodriguez makes $25 million a year and I don't, but then I don't bring a horde of paparazzi with me everytime I eat at Burger King, either!

So why do you think CEOs of public companies are paid so much?

Why do you think baseball players are paid so much?

They are paid that much because the owners of the organization believe that the CEO or the ball player is generating a lot of wealth.

Yea, sure you have. I know when I  "cheet" on my taxes I document and show it to the local left-wing kook too.

Regardless, what we do know is that the highest income earners are paying the bulk of the taxes. Yet you think they are responsible for the deficit that was largely produced because their money was given to people who earn very little (and hence are taxed very little). It's just baffling logic.

Why not simply quit giving money to these non-earners and balance the budget and be done with it?

What we know is that the tax cut to the wealthy was predicated on the argument that they were over taxed which was justified by the Bush claim there was a surplus to return to them. That was not correct- There was nothing to return and there should not have been a tax cut. Thus we need to fix this error by repealing the tax cuts and pay back the debt that tax cut helped create!

You delude yourself if you believe anyone is worth the salaries top sports figures and top executives receive. Those bogus salaries result in the public being OVER charged for what ever these companies provide the consumer!

Those bogus salaries result in the public being OVER charged for what ever these companies provide the consumer!

More bull-excrement.  The public isn't over-charged for anything.  They may pay more than they 'had to' because they desire a product too much, but no one is twisting the arm of the public to buy the goods and services that you seem to think are over-priced.

As usual, you want to come up with justifications for why you and your friends on the liberal side of the aisle should be permitted to grab that much more from those that have.  Again, step your sorry butt away from the wallets and purses of everyone else.  If you want to contribute so much more, then nothing stops you from writing a bigger check or not claiming as many deductions.  Oooops, I forgot, you *need* your money while everyone else has too much, right?

i see that you still don't know the difference between scene and seen.


and i will not even touch on the letters CHEET.

all we have to do to balance the budget gene is get rid of the automatic inflation of all programs.