$675 Billion Deficit if FY 2005

Well, apparently all they have to do is cut out all the giveaways programs (as advertised in Matthew Lesko's books), and our budget is balanced!! ;~D

That is BS. Show me what you would cut to produce $675 Billion per year ! I agree we should cut the Pork which has been estimeted at 25-30Billion. Cuts in Medicade, education, Veteran benefits, border guards, help to the poor for home heating are not acceptable cuts. Neither are cuts in Social Security or Medicare. If you believe cuts in these social and retirement/health care programs would fly with the vast majority of Americans, you live in a dream world!

Well, according to Mr. Lesko: "There is This is real money, given out by real government agencies. Each year the U.S. Congress appropriates over $1 TRILLION in government grants for people to use to help themselves and help the country. ORDER NOW!" So don't get your panties in a wad at me!! As long as there is money out there to "open a coffee shop, write a book, or work on your invention" I'd say the deficit could be into non-existence, just by using Lesko's books as a blue print!!!

Maybe you wouldn't have had to pay Authorhouse all that dough, had you known about Lesko and all that government cash!!!!! ;~D

Link

If the government is EXPENDING 1 Trillion in grants, where does it show up in the Federal Expendatures? I suspect that Trillion dollars is a projection of the possible grants if everyone received every possible grant. Any payments from grants would show in the federal disbursements! If the Fed were paying Americans $1 Trillion in grants each year, the deficit would be $1.5 Trillion each year.

I don't know, why don't you ask Lesko? ;~D

Mr Lesko and his guides to Govt Grants does not address the point of this Blog. Our problem is not grants it is Govt Operations 487 Billion, Defense including the Iraq war 525 Billion, the interest of about 350 billion, Medicade of 194 Billion, other including military and Govt pensions of another 337 Billion.

So, I made a suggestion on how Congress can apparently cut up to $1 trillion from the budget. Lesko's books should be used as the blueprint. All you do is sit there and call Bush a liar, without EVER offering up anything by way of suggestion.

Tall words for a guy who still throws his rank around, what, over a decade after you retired?? Let the birds land man!! ;~D

As I said, the budget expendatures do not show any Trillion in payments for Grants as part of the 675 Billion dollar deficit.. They contain the data I show in my reply ( per the Bush Sec of the Treasury). Look at the OMB Web site. You can not solve the budget deficit by removing something that is not part of the deficit. It is the Bush policy and the financial statements from the Bush administartion that are in question. Who would you like to hold accountable? Clinton or Kerry There are 900 grants from 26 agencies. However as I said the Fed can only pay out the amount appropriated each year for each of the 900 grants. I do not know the total appropriated but is in the billions. When a person applies for a grant and the amount that was appropriated has been reached, they do not receive the money even though they may qualify for the grant. Thus, the trillion dollars in the book you sight is to help sell the book. If everyone that could applied did so. most would not receive a cent since the total available is not even close to a Trillion. Bottom line, if ALL grants were cut, it would only lower the deficit by the number of billions appropriated which is part of the General Fund budget. Not the magic Bullet you claim. Try again!

Col Gene, what you consider "Acceptable" and what I consider acceptable are pretty different I suspect.

I somehow suspect that your "solution" to the deficit would be mainly to cut military spending and raise taxes. I don't consider that acceptable.  I'd prefer to see welfare cut. And by welfare I mean medicaid, medicare and social security (in the latter two cases, i would put in a policy that would prevent those who haven't contributed into the system from being able to take out of it. PLus I would ensure that no one got more than X times what they put in out).  I'd also eliminate the department of education and all federal spending on education.

 

First, only Medicade (197 Billion in FY 05) is welfare. Social Security and Medicare are types of insurance that people are entitled to and promised by the government. If you believe the vast majority would accept ending or cutting to any extent Social Security or Medicare you are wrong. I do not think most would agree with drastic cuts in Medicade because it helps the poor with healthcare.

I would do the following:

Eliminate Pork About 25-30 Billion
Plug loop holes that allow business to avoid corporate taxes
Restore the taxs on the trop 5% to the pre 2001 levels
Include all earned income for Social Security taxes and invest the added 100 Billion per year in equities within the Social Security Trust
Seek to reduce the amount of Medicare expendatures for administration, recorders keeping etc. Only 65% of Medicare expendatures go for medical treatment and drugs.
Begin rebuilding the schools, roads, bridges, water/sewer systems and electrical grids. This would provide jobs and profits to the companies doing the work and would be a more effective way to stimulate GDP growth then tax cuts to the wealthy while reparing our nation.
I agree that only people who paid into SS should receive benefits and we may need a means test for social security benefits to insure it is able to make the full payments to those who need it for retirement.

Begin rebuilding the schools, roads, bridges, water/sewer systems and electrical grids.

Ok, how do you do this, and cut "pork". By definition any expenditures in either of these areas would be "pork", since they are not the responsibility of the federal government.

But at least there were some suggestions in there. Instead of mindless Bush bashing.

Pork are appropriations that do not go through the normal process and are tacked on to other bills. The rebuilding of basic services are not taking place. States do not have the money and companies are not stepping forward. These systems will fail at some point and I am suggesting a way to s better stimulate the economy by employing provate contractors with federal money.

COL Gene,

Even you are blindsided when you say there is "only" $25-30 billion a year in pork. As para points out, maybe Lesko's book needs a harder look. As I have pointed out, many of the jobs given to feed the hungry beast that is the federal government are pork; they just aren't defined as pork. In FACT, the "Department of Homeland Security" ITSELF is pork; it replicates the jobs of the state National Guards and the FBI. And at a huge cost.

The FACTS are facts: when the government ANNUAL BUDGET, conservatively figured, amounts to over $8500 per man, woman and child, we're getting EXTREMELY poor value on the dollar. Change need to be made, and NOT by raising taxes so that the federal government can operate on MORE money.

What we have is the equivalent of a family making $20,000 a year and living on a budget of $25,000 a year; eventually it WILL catch up with them. Unfortunately, unlike our hypothetical family, a bankruptcy of the US government stands to carry FAR GREATER consequences.

There may be other areas that can be cut but those cuts are not even close the the 675 Billion of the deficit. In addition, to begin paying down the $7.6 Trillion debt and reducing future interest would require even more than the 675 Billion per year. Face it, without both spending cuts, higher GDP growth and tax increases, the deficit of the size we have today can not be resolved! If we start cutting lots of federal jobs we had better have job growth to provide employment or we just trade one problem for another.

If we start cutting lots of federal jobs we had better have job growth to provide employment or we just trade one problem for another.

Right, we can't do it overnight...but we can't solve the budget problem overnight either. What we need to do is begin eliminating government jobs through attrition and shifting workers to other agencies/departments over time. True, it will take awhile before the net effect of a smaller government is realized, but we will be headed in the right direction.

(Of course, we can also help the jobs situation by giving American jobs to American workers FIRST...especially before ILLEGALS are hired!...but that's just my two cents).

Given the homeland defense and military requirements, I doubt that the net change in the size of the Federal employment will change. We can not make the tax cut perminant and must reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy ASAP. We need to plug the corporate loop holes now. We need to begin taxing all wages for Social Security to increase the Social Security Trust Fund.

Given the homeland defense and military requirements, I doubt that the net change in the size of the Federal employment will change. We can not make the tax cut perminant and must reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy ASAP. We need to plug the corporate loop holes now. We need to begin taxing all wages for Social Security to increase the Social Security Trust Fund.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. Your "always" correct and we're *always wrong! Never give an inch right COL?

There may be other ways to resolve our problems but the policies we are following clearly show they are NOT working. Why don't you offer some other policies, other then just blindly support what Bush has tried.

I do not know what academic and actual business experience you have but I suspect it is limited.

Given the homeland defense and military requirements, I doubt that the net change in the size of the Federal employment will change. We can not make the tax cut perminant and must reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy ASAP. We need to plug the corporate loop holes now. We need to begin taxing all wages for Social Security to increase the Social Security Trust Fund.

Tax 'em all, let God sort 'em out!!!! ;~D

We can not make the tax cut perminant and must reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy ASAP.

Why should just the "rich" get their taxes raised? If you raise taxes on them, you should raise them for everybody else. Class warfare at it's best.

Social Security and Medicare are types of insurance that people are entitled to

I call B.S. right there.

You say entitled to.

Actuarials would say may have to be paid by or benefit from.

INSURANCE, not entitlement.

That's the problem. You assume that everyone is entitled to because they paid insurance premiums in. I assume that it's there if needed, but otherwise I shouldn't be trying to use it.

That's the difference with what Bush is trying to get done with Social Security. He's trying to get people off the government funds, and on their own, so they don't have to live on the government dime.

Keep crying, it makes you seem the bitter old fool we assume you to be.

They are entitled to it given the fact they paid Social Security taxes to pay for the retirement of past workers. tell me if you paid insurance premium for 50 years and you die you don't expect your family to benefit. This is not the government's money is our my our tax dollars. The best majority of people will not provide for their retirement and if the market were to fall off like he did in 1999 were even worse in 1932, there should be a for to which workers can rely on at retirement.

What George Bush is proposing has nothing to do with safeguarding Social Security. His private account plan does not deal with the funding issue of the baby boomers. In fact he is no way to pay for the conversion from the current system to private accounts which will require trillion to dollars. This solution is to borrow more and see how much more interest we all can pay in the future. The place for private accounts is over and above social security. The simple solution is to raise the limit on Social Security income which will produce about $100 billion more per year for the Social Security trust fund. We should in addition to invest that hundred billion dollars per year and a broad mix of equities to get the benefit of the hire earnings without the added cost of maintaining millions of accounts such as the Bush plan would require and eliminate the individual risk of the market being down at the time of persons retirement.

If Bush wants to look at something that's really in trouble he needs to look at Medicare and Medicaid. The prescription drug plan he approved as an almost three quarters of $1 trillion to 10 year payout of Medicare. How has that help solve the solvency issue for Medicare? Medicaid is also in trouble and the Bush plan to deal with it is to cut the federal contribution and drive up state taxes.

George Bush knows one thing the Loral and spend borrow and spend and hell tomorrow.we are putting our children and grandchildren in a horrible position because we refuse to pay for our current needs. And please don't tell me that we can balance the budget with any series of spending cuts. The problem is so large that only a combination of both spending cuts and tax increases have any chance of balancing the federal budget. We have never had a worst performance by a president concerning the fiscal policy of this country. It I was giving an Academy award for the worst possible actor as president would be George W. Bush.

They are entitled to it given the fact they paid Social Security taxes to pay for the retirement of past workers

First of all, SS was NEVER intended to be paid, it was just another tax. The age at which people became eligible (when it was instituted) for SS was AFTER their life expectancy was up. The government sold a raw bill of goods. The plan was, everyone was dead before they could collect.

The problem is so large that only a combination of both spending cuts and tax increases have any chance of balancing the federal budget.

This is just patently absurd and false. Neither needs to take place to both balance the budget AND eliminate the deficit. Cap spending increases to the inflation rate, maintain GDP growth at the current 6.6% (for '04) and by 2008 the budget is balanced and deficit gone. Can it happen? yes. Will it? probably not. Trying to put a cap on spending of congress is not likely, after all, they don't want to lose their jobs and they need to bring home the $$ to their constituents. Plus entitlements grow uncontrolled. The GDP growth is not out of the realm of possibilty though.

They are entitled to it given the fact they paid Social Security taxes to pay for the retirement of past workers. tell me if you paid insurance premium for 50 years and you die you don't expect your family to benefit. This is not the government's money is our my our tax dollars. The best majority of people will not provide for their retirement and if the market were to fall off like he did in 1999 were even worse in 1932, there should be a for to which workers can rely on at retirement. What George Bush is proposing has nothing to do with safeguarding Social Security. His private account plan does not deal with the funding issue of the baby boomers. In fact he is no way to pay for the conversion from the current system to private accounts which will require trillion to dollars. This solution is to borrow more and see how much more interest we all can pay in the future. The place for private accounts is over and above social security. The simple solution is to raise the limit on Social Security income which will produce about $100 billion more per year for the Social Security trust fund. We should in addition to invest that hundred billion dollars per year and a broad mix of equities to get the benefit of the hire earnings without the added cost of maintaining millions of accounts such as the Bush plan would require and eliminate the individual risk of the market being down at the time of persons retirement. If Bush wants to look at something that's really in trouble he needs to look at Medicare and Medicaid. The prescription drug plan he approved as an almost three quarters of $1 trillion to 10 year payout of Medicare. How has that help solve the solvency issue for Medicare? Medicaid is also in trouble and the Bush plan to deal with it is to cut the federal contribution and drive up state taxes. George Bush knows one thing the Loral and spend borrow and spend and hell tomorrow.we are putting our children and grandchildren in a horrible position because we refuse to pay for our current needs. And please don't tell me that we can balance the budget with any series of spending cuts. The problem is so large that only a combination of both spending cuts and tax increases have any chance of balancing the federal budget. We have never had a worst performance by a president concerning the fiscal policy of this country. It I was giving an Academy award for the worst possible actor as president would be George W. Bush.

Oh for God's sake COL give it a rest.

Col's proposal for what he woudl do wouldn't come close to eliminating the deficit btw.