What to cut: The Federal Budget

[DiamondDave]

As far as the federal budget was concerned, we went from surplus to deficit with dizzying speed due to cutting taxes on the richest and fighting two wars without budgeting for them.


And your thread is titled What to cut: the Federal Budget.

We had no surplus.. and this has been shown time and time and time and time and time and time again.... You little wingers on the uber-left like to leave out a little something called intergovernmental spending

We did have a budget surplus, which has been shown time and time again...under the laws that exist on the books and under the laws we have operated under since Johnson and then Reagan..

But Yes, I agree it was a Social security surplus that got our budget to appear as though it was inline.

the reason we show money being added to the national debt during that period, is because President clinton took the social security surpluses and paid down the public debt with them, paid down the debt we owed other countries....so our debt moved columns from what we owed to foreigners, to what we owed ourselves, (social security), is my understanding of it.

And you do realize that President Bush, did uses $2.0 trillion dollars of social security surplus monies to help balance his budget and show less yearly budget deficits as well, right?

I can say I am in the black as well... look.. I brought in 200K and only spent 190K.... but when I neglect to tell you that part of that 200K was what I borrowed from mom, it paints the full picture, now don't it...

There was no surplus, unless you like to perpetuate the myth by leaving out the intergovernmental spending

I do not defend Bush's governmental spending policies.. never had

 

[JWBooth]

I have two wars I'd like to cut from the budget

I'll see your two and raise you two.

"War on poverty" and "War on (some) Drugs"

Damn, am I that obvious?

 

[8537]

There was not fiscal discipline... #1

of course there was. The budget deficit declined each year and Clinton focused on budget balance over his social agenda from the day he took office.

Care to look at interest rates comparatively?

Sure. what comparison would you like to use?

And show causation of taxation being the source of your alleged improvement...

It's a concept taught in one of the very first sessions of any econ class.

 

[Paulie]

As for federal involvement in education. It's clear that it falls under the general welfare clause and I'm not going to get into a debate on the issue in this context.

The genereal welfare clause essentially says government may collect taxes for the general welfare. Madison and Jefferson further stated that the clause referred specifically to the enumerated powers that follow it in which education is not found.

Education always and everywhere was a matter for states and localities. The Federal gov't has no business in education, nor did they ever.
Claiming the "necessary and proper" clause (there is no general welfare clause, that's in the preamble) supports gov't intrusion in education is simply ignorance. But what can you expect from one of the top ignoramuses on this site?

I don't know what constitution you're reading.

"General welfare" is mentioned right in the beginning of Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.

"Necessary and proper" is mentioned at the end of that, in terms of laws necessary for carrying out the execution of the aforementioned powers.

 

[8537]

We had no surplus.. and this has been shown time and time and time and time and time and time again...

then why did publicy-held debt decline?

 

[The Rabbi]

The genereal welfare clause essentially says government may collect taxes for the general welfare. Madison and Jefferson further stated that the clause referred specifically to the enumerated powers that follow it in which education is not found.

Education always and everywhere was a matter for states and localities. The Federal gov't has no business in education, nor did they ever.
Claiming the "necessary and proper" clause (there is no general welfare clause, that's in the preamble) supports gov't intrusion in education is simply ignorance. But what can you expect from one of the top ignoramuses on this site?

I don't know what constitution you're reading.

"General welfare" is mentioned right in the beginning of Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.

"Necessary and proper" is mentioned at the end of that, in terms of laws necessary for carrying out the execution of the aforementioned powers.

You're right. General welfare is mentioned right before a list of enumerated powers. Why didn't the Founders just stop there, instead of mentioning specific powers? Why not just say they could whatever they thought was in the national interest?
Because they didn't want the FedGov extending its reach further and further, especially trumping state powers, which education certainly is part of.

 

[Care4all]

We had no surplus.. and this has been shown time and time and time and time and time and time again.... You little wingers on the uber-left like to leave out a little something called intergovernmental spending

We did have a budget surplus, which has been shown time and time again...under the laws that exist on the books and under the laws we have operated under since Johnson and then Reagan..

But Yes, I agree it was a Social security surplus that got our budget to appear as though it was inline.

the reason we show money being added to the national debt during that period, is because President clinton took the social security surpluses and paid down the public debt with them, paid down the debt we owed other countries....so our debt moved columns from what we owed to foreigners, to what we owed ourselves, (social security), is my understanding of it.

And you do realize that President Bush, did uses $2.0 trillion dollars of social security surplus monies to help balance his budget and show less yearly budget deficits as well, right?

I can say I am in the black as well... look.. I brought in 200K and only spent 190K.... but when I neglect to tell you that part of that 200K was what I borrowed from mom, it paints the full picture, now don't it...

There was no surplus, unless you like to perpetuate the myth by leaving out the intergovernmental spending

I do not defend Bush's governmental spending policies.. never had

By LAW, the term "the BUDGET'' is what we spend on running our country and what we spend on social security etc., and it includes what we take in revenues from income, corporate, excise taxes, and social security taxes.

That's just the way it is....and unless we have Congress change this, the "budget" refers to just that....

I don't like it as much as you don't like it, but it is what it is....according to law.

as I said, our intragovernmental debt went up, because Clinton took some of the social security surplus and used it to pay down the Public Debt, which is the debt that we owed other countries.....which then made it debt that we owe ourselves....from my understanding of it.

The public debt and the intragovernmental debt combined, is called our National Debt.

 

[8537]

We did have a budget surplus, which has been shown time and time again...under the laws that exist on the books and under the laws we have operated under since Johnson and then Reagan..

But Yes, I agree it was a Social security surplus that got our budget to appear as though it was inline.

the reason we show money being added to the national debt during that period, is because President clinton took the social security surpluses and paid down the public debt with them, paid down the debt we owed other countries....so our debt moved columns from what we owed to foreigners, to what we owed ourselves, (social security), is my understanding of it.

And you do realize that President Bush, did uses $2.0 trillion dollars of social security surplus monies to help balance his budget and show less yearly budget deficits as well, right?

I can say I am in the black as well... look.. I brought in 200K and only spent 190K.... but when I neglect to tell you that part of that 200K was what I borrowed from mom, it paints the full picture, now don't it...

There was no surplus, unless you like to perpetuate the myth by leaving out the intergovernmental spending

I do not defend Bush's governmental spending policies.. never had

By LAW, the term "the BUDGET'' is what we spend on running our country and what we spend on social security etc., and it includes what we take in revenues from income, corporate, excise taxes, and social security taxes.

That's just the way it is....and unless we have Congress change this, the "budget" refers to just that....

I don't like it as much as you don't like it, but it is what it is....according to law.

as I said, our intragovernmental debt went up, because Clinton took some of the social security surplus and used it to pay down the Public Debt, which is the debt that we owed other countries.....which then made it debt that we owe ourselves....from my understanding of it.

The public debt and the intragovernmental debt combined, is called our National Debt.

Public debt is any debt the federal government owes to anyone but itself - other countries, private US citizens, fund managers, random arab oil shieks etc...

intergovernmental debt is not backed by full faith and credit, and can be cancelled by legislative decree at any time.

 

[Paulie]

Education always and everywhere was a matter for states and localities. The Federal gov't has no business in education, nor did they ever.
Claiming the "necessary and proper" clause (there is no general welfare clause, that's in the preamble) supports gov't intrusion in education is simply ignorance. But what can you expect from one of the top ignoramuses on this site?

I don't know what constitution you're reading.

"General welfare" is mentioned right in the beginning of Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.

"Necessary and proper" is mentioned at the end of that, in terms of laws necessary for carrying out the execution of the aforementioned powers.

You're right. General welfare is mentioned right before a list of enumerated powers. Why didn't the Founders just stop there, instead of mentioning specific powers? Why not just say they could whatever they thought was in the national interest?
Because they didn't want the FedGov extending its reach further and further, especially trumping state powers, which education certainly is part of.

I'm just pointing out your mistake, that's all. It doesn't help to argue your case based on constitutionality, while not knowing what's going on in the constitution.

As far as WHY they were so vague, I don't know. It's certainly not a perfect document.

I'm on your side though on the education issue. I don't really see why the federal government needs to be involved.

Centralization of education is impossible to manage. There's no way some bureaucrat in some office in DC can adequately realize the educational needs of someone thousands of miles away. Every community in the country has its own distinct characteristics and issues. What's good for Sheboygan, WI is not necessarily what's good for Peoria, IL.

 

[johnrocks]

Education always and everywhere was a matter for states and localities. The Federal gov't has no business in education, nor did they ever.
Claiming the "necessary and proper" clause (there is no general welfare clause, that's in the preamble) supports gov't intrusion in education is simply ignorance. But what can you expect from one of the top ignoramuses on this site?

I don't know what constitution you're reading.

"General welfare" is mentioned right in the beginning of Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.

"Necessary and proper" is mentioned at the end of that, in terms of laws necessary for carrying out the execution of the aforementioned powers.

You're right. General welfare is mentioned right before a list of enumerated powers. Why didn't the Founders just stop there, instead of mentioning specific powers? Why not just say they could whatever they thought was in the national interest?
Because they didn't want the FedGov extending its reach further and further, especially trumping state powers, which education certainly is part of.

Both sides do it, while the libs have turned the "General Welfare" Clause into a joke, I don't see "Common Defense of Israel,Europe and South Korea" in the Constitution either.

 

[DiamondDave]

We had no surplus.. and this has been shown time and time and time and time and time and time again...

then why did publicy-held debt decline?

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

Selective information will get you nowhere

 

[rdean]

First, cut all subsidies to oil companies.

Second, review the "tax exempt" status of Churches. If they are so involved in politics, they are not just churches, but political organizations. They should have to pay.

Drop the trillion dollar tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

Declare victory in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our troops home.

Close military bases in Europe for sure and possibly Japan.

Increase tariffs on companies bringing products made overseas that used to be made here. At least to the level of what those products would have cost under minimum wage. We want to compete, but if people in China are willing to work for 100 bucks a month, good. We aren't. They way Europe does it is to have inspectors that are paid for by the companies, but work for the government. Gifts over $25 not allowed, that only leaves lunch.

Heavier fines for pollution and that even means littering. This across the board.

Look at some method for share holders to have enough power to keep CEO's from hundred million dollar paychecks.

Tax credits for R&D.

That's a start.

 

[DiamondDave]

We did have a budget surplus, which has been shown time and time again...under the laws that exist on the books and under the laws we have operated under since Johnson and then Reagan..

But Yes, I agree it was a Social security surplus that got our budget to appear as though it was inline.

the reason we show money being added to the national debt during that period, is because President clinton took the social security surpluses and paid down the public debt with them, paid down the debt we owed other countries....so our debt moved columns from what we owed to foreigners, to what we owed ourselves, (social security), is my understanding of it.

And you do realize that President Bush, did uses $2.0 trillion dollars of social security surplus monies to help balance his budget and show less yearly budget deficits as well, right?

I can say I am in the black as well... look.. I brought in 200K and only spent 190K.... but when I neglect to tell you that part of that 200K was what I borrowed from mom, it paints the full picture, now don't it...

There was no surplus, unless you like to perpetuate the myth by leaving out the intergovernmental spending

I do not defend Bush's governmental spending policies.. never had

By LAW, the term "the BUDGET'' is what we spend on running our country and what we spend on social security etc., and it includes what we take in revenues from income, corporate, excise taxes, and social security taxes.

That's just the way it is....and unless we have Congress change this, the "budget" refers to just that....

I don't like it as much as you don't like it, but it is what it is....according to law.

as I said, our intragovernmental debt went up, because Clinton took some of the social security surplus and used it to pay down the Public Debt, which is the debt that we owed other countries.....which then made it debt that we owe ourselves....from my understanding of it.

The public debt and the intragovernmental debt combined, is called our National Debt.

So you would rather believe the lie that has been perpetuated by our government for a long time.... rather than look at the whole picture that tells the truth...???

I can borrow from mom to pay off the gambling debt... that does not mean I am in the black.... it's a fucking shell game with the government, and it is a shell game with the Clintonistas that keep perpetuating the myth

 

[8537]

Selective information will get you nowhere

Nor will being completely ignorant of the topic at hand. Speaking of which...Debt held by the public went down because government revenues were higher than government expenses. By any standard definition, if revenues are greater than expenses a profit or surplus exists.

Intergovernmental debt went up because the surplus in the trust funds was sold to the general fund at interest - and that sale + interest creates a debt in the budget.

in short, as long as the trust funds were running a surplus larger than the general fund surplus, total government debt including intergovernmental debt would increase.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Education always and everywhere was a matter for states and localities. The Federal gov't has no business in education, nor did they ever.
Claiming the "necessary and proper" clause (there is no general welfare clause, that's in the preamble) supports gov't intrusion in education is simply ignorance. But what can you expect from one of the top ignoramuses on this site?

I don't know what constitution you're reading.

"General welfare" is mentioned right in the beginning of Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.

"Necessary and proper" is mentioned at the end of that, in terms of laws necessary for carrying out the execution of the aforementioned powers.

You're right. General welfare is mentioned right before a list of enumerated powers. Why didn't the Founders just stop there, instead of mentioning specific powers? Why not just say they could whatever they thought was in the national interest?
Because they didn't want the FedGov extending its reach further and further, especially trumping state powers, which education certainly is part of.

Because "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" is a mission statement, not a directive. That entire sentence was explaining the purpose and aim of Congress, before they then listed exactly how Congress was supposed to achieve it.

 

[8537]

it's a fucking shell game with the government, and it is a shell game with the Clintonistas that keep perpetuating the myth

Who knew that George W Bush and his administration were Clintonistas?

 

[Paulie]

I don't know what constitution you're reading.

"General welfare" is mentioned right in the beginning of Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.

"Necessary and proper" is mentioned at the end of that, in terms of laws necessary for carrying out the execution of the aforementioned powers.

You're right. General welfare is mentioned right before a list of enumerated powers. Why didn't the Founders just stop there, instead of mentioning specific powers? Why not just say they could whatever they thought was in the national interest?
Because they didn't want the FedGov extending its reach further and further, especially trumping state powers, which education certainly is part of.

Because "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" is a mission statement, not a directive. That entire sentence was explaining the purpose and aim of Congress, before they then listed exactly how Congress was supposed to achieve it.

Not necessarily. The whole part that begins with "congress shall have the power to" is exactly where the list of "powers" began.

They mention duties and taxes, and apportioning in that whole first phrase. So there are specifics being mentioned there.

It's not necessarily just a "mission statement". The preamble was the mission statement.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're right. General welfare is mentioned right before a list of enumerated powers. Why didn't the Founders just stop there, instead of mentioning specific powers? Why not just say they could whatever they thought was in the national interest?
Because they didn't want the FedGov extending its reach further and further, especially trumping state powers, which education certainly is part of.

Because "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" is a mission statement, not a directive. That entire sentence was explaining the purpose and aim of Congress, before they then listed exactly how Congress was supposed to achieve it.

Not necessarily. The whole part that begins with "congress shall have the power to" is exactly where the list of "powers" began.

They mention duties and taxes, and apportioning in that whole first phrase. So there are specifics being mentioned there.

It's not necessarily just a "mission statement". The preamble was the mission statement.

If that were the case then they could have skipped all the enumerated stuff. They didnt. And they put "general welfare" in a sentence dealing with taxation. This tells me taxation is only to be used for the purposes of promoting the general welfare subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs.
And none of them mentions Education.

 

[Paulie]

Because "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" is a mission statement, not a directive. That entire sentence was explaining the purpose and aim of Congress, before they then listed exactly how Congress was supposed to achieve it.

Not necessarily. The whole part that begins with "congress shall have the power to" is exactly where the list of "powers" began.

They mention duties and taxes, and apportioning in that whole first phrase. So there are specifics being mentioned there.

It's not necessarily just a "mission statement". The preamble was the mission statement.

If that were the case then they could have skipped all the enumerated stuff. They didnt. And they put "general welfare" in a sentence dealing with taxation. This tells me taxation is only to be used for the purposes of promoting the general welfare subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs.
And none of them mentions Education.

I don't know...

I interpret that first phrase to simply be the first power, with providing for the "general welfare" to be one of those powers. The rest of the powers listed in that section aren't necessarily for our "general welfare". Why is granting letters of marque and reprisal, for instance, for our general welfare? I mean fuck, we don't even DO that anymore.

Why is "laws on the subject of bankruptcies", or "tribunals inferior to the supreme court" in our general welfare?

Those don't seem all that important to the welfare of the citizens. I would place food in higher importance than those.

General welfare needs to be interpreted. But it needs to be interpreted with common sense. Education doesn't fit simply because centralizing it is not in the best interest of the nation's educational needs. It's that simple.

Localized handling of education makes sense, and THAT'S why I don't interpret general welfare to cover it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're right. General welfare is mentioned right before a list of enumerated powers. Why didn't the Founders just stop there, instead of mentioning specific powers? Why not just say they could whatever they thought was in the national interest?
Because they didn't want the FedGov extending its reach further and further, especially trumping state powers, which education certainly is part of.

Because "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" is a mission statement, not a directive. That entire sentence was explaining the purpose and aim of Congress, before they then listed exactly how Congress was supposed to achieve it.

Not necessarily. The whole part that begins with "congress shall have the power to" is exactly where the list of "powers" began.

They mention duties and taxes, and apportioning in that whole first phrase. So there are specifics being mentioned there.

It's not necessarily just a "mission statement". The preamble was the mission statement.

Read the sentence. It says Congress can lay and collect taxes, etc., and then it says WHY Congress can do that: to pay the nation's debts and to provide for the nation's defense and welfare (defined as well-being, not checks to poor people). THEN the rest of the section lays out HOW Congress is going to provide for defense and well-being nationally. So yeah, there are powers specifically mentioned in that first sentence, but they are still part of the mission statement of Congress. And "common Defence and general Welfare" are purely explanatory, rather than directive.

The preamble, on the other hand, is the mission statement for the whole Constitution.