What to cut: The Federal Budget

[syrenn]

Do you have anything of substance to contribute? I don't just mean this thread. I mean the entire board. There is not a single post of your that is not you spewing your ignorant worthless leftist opinion on stuff you don't have the slightest idea about. You have never successfully defended a single argument you've made.
You are supposed to be some kind of lawyer. Id like to know which law school sold you a diploma. Or maybe you blew your way to one.

I'm done dealing with your worthless troll ass. People like you are a wart on the buttocks of society.

So long as you don't read everything with a slant, jillian does have intelligent things to say and she is FAR from ignorant. Granted, on a good deal of things she and i will be on difference sides of the fence, but that is the beauty of .....debate. You don't have to agree with anyone or even like what they have to say, but you can still like them and what they do have to say.

Grow up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I just said "tell me you don't think the CIA, NSA ..... are constitutional"

That's the same ******* thing as asking you if you think they are.

Let's see how small government you really are.

No, it ISN'T the "same ******* thing". I can see why you think you need an Amendment to explain the grammar of the Constitution to you. Clearly, English is not your forte.

Telling me what to say is not the same thing as asking me what I think. Just that one sentence should explain the difference to anyone who understands elementary-school vocabulary.

Let's see how English proficient you are, when you attempt once again to REQUEST my opinion from me, rather than TELLING me what it is, TELLING me what it should be, or demanding that I demonstrate anything to you, as though I owe you something.

Your mother ever tell you you'll catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar? Because I can tell you now, acting as though I'm obligated to justify myself to you is the surest way to get nothing from me but ignored as a troll.

It's called sarcasm you stupid ******* *****.

Here in NJ, that's how we talk to bitches like you.

Are you going to respond about those programs being constitutional or not?

If not, then how about you shut your dick duster, huh?

As a matter of fact, what I'm going to do is what we in Arizona do with misogynistic needledicks like you, assuming we're not in a position to shoot them: ignore them like the puling little boys they are.

Call me if you ever grow testicles and stop fearing women so much. FLUSH!

 

[Cecilie1200]

That would be the only thing to be cut that would actually make a dent.... which is why the pretend rabbi troll and his ilk are so disingenuous....

it's the same old 'let's starve government til you can drown it in a bathtub' garbage that it's always been for the reactionary right.

It's always funny to hear someone who didn't even bother to look at the OP's links accuse the OP of being "reactionary", as though you didn't just kick in with kneejerk talking points.

Defense spending is the only thing to cut that would make a dent? Really? The Department of Health and Human Services encompasses about 1/4 of total federal spending, but you don't think cutting waste and dead weight there would "make a dent"? Puhleeze.

What are you smoking? Mind the USMB drug policy... that is, share.

1/4 of total federal spending? 78B = (.25) x 3.5T according to your math?

Try about 2.2%, a little more than 1/50th.

Military on the other hand? About 1/4 to 1/3, depending on what you count as "Military."

What are YOU smoking, that made you think the budget of Health and Human Services is $78 billion? From a statement by Kathleen Sebelius before the Committee on Appropriations:

"The President’s FY 2010 Budget for HHS totals $879 billion in outlays."
FY 2010 Budget

From the Cato Institute site linked in the OP, which no one but me and the OP apparently read:

"The Department of Health and Human Services encompasses a giant and sprawling collection of agencies and programs. Its 2010 budget of $869 billion represents almost one-quarter of total federal spending."
Department of Health and Human Services | Downsizing the Federal Government

How could anyone think that the department that includes Medicare and Medicaid only has a budget of $78 billion? I'd have thought drugs THAT powerful would melt the brain on contact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What to cut? I say we start with defense spending. Next?

That would be the only thing to be cut that would actually make a dent.... which is why the pretend rabbi troll and his ilk are so disingenuous....

it's the same old 'let's starve government til you can drown it in a bathtub' garbage that it's always been for the reactionary right.

Everything needs to be cut straight across the board. What do you think about 20% from off the top of EVERYTHING.

More than simply cutting dollars out of the budgets, I would like to see more effective and innovative ways of using the money.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Cecille I'll bite.

What's your opinion on the Constitutionality of the NSA, FBI, and CIA? How about the Louisiana Purchase?

I personally find them dubious. It definitely seems like an implied power, but I think if we're looking for strict Constitutional guidelines all 3 of the agencies listed would have to have been set up as a section of the Army or Navy as Army or Navy intelligence (as in some cases they actually were prior to the Cold War). Making them an independent operation is IMHO as questionable as the Welfare clause.

 

[Toro]

Slash social security, medicare and defense. That's 75% of the budget.

Otherwise, raise taxes.

 

[Toro]

So the Left has basically two strings:
1) The GOP screwed up so don't re-elect them.
2) If they GOP does get in, what are they going to do different?

On 1,while true (the Republicans thought they could become popular by pushing Democratic policies) we see what the Democrats did when they get in office. They turned the second best economy post war into crap and have compounded their mistakes every day. The GOP was thoroughly beaten up in 06 and 08 and even now the party bulls are in fear from Tea Party candidates.

On 2, here's the list from Cato Institute.
Downsizing the Federal Government

Bush 01 to 08 was the second best economy since WWII?

please

Well, that's simply wrong. It was the weakest recovery since WWII.

 

[Toro]

Reagan ran up huge deficits and rates were lower than under Carter, Obama has run up deficits bigger that the budgets of most countries than almost ever nation on the planet and rates are lower than under Reagan.

Can you show us when this "Crowding" actually occurred?

Rates rose under Carter because Carter appointed Paul Volcker, who is now widely considered to be the greatest Fed governor ever. It was Volcker who broke the back of inflation. Reagan then fired Volcker and appointed Alan Greenspan, the architect of the Tech and Housing Bubbles, and probably the worst central banker this country has ever seen.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Not to mention we have more than just the constitution to go on. We have multiple writings by the founders from Before and after the constitution.

Take a look at my quotes for example in my sig.

What is so hard to understand about what Jefferson or Madison said about this question, which was already being asked in their life times.

I think you have to be careful pulling in the other Founder writings on interpreting the Constitution. Where they agree, fine, but the Founders were hardly a hive mind. They disagreed on almost everything, sometimes violently. Some were looking to set up the tools for an actual empire, and some were looking at the Fed as a kind of Military Alliance to protect the States who would remain the primary government structures.

Some of the Founders even changed stances on issues over their lives. Especially once the rubber hit the road and they hit issues not covered by the Constitution.

My point is (and I'm not accusing you of doing this btw) that some on this board invoke the Founders without realizing that even the Founders weren't entirely sure how this would play out.

My personal opinion is that I'm shocked we've yet to use the Constitutional Convention option in the Constitution. That was put in place to give the States a check on Federal power. If the Fed is out of hand, lets have the Convention and settle these issues once and for all.

 

[Toro]

Yes, if you ignore how much the Capital Markets swooned because we had elected a Marxist, then yes, the stock market is doing peachy keen as are the banks and the insurance companies.

All is well in ObamaVille

Stock market in Venezuela under Chavez did better than the stock market in America under Bush.

Just sayin'.

 

[Paulie]

No, it ISN'T the "same ******* thing". I can see why you think you need an Amendment to explain the grammar of the Constitution to you. Clearly, English is not your forte.

Telling me what to say is not the same thing as asking me what I think. Just that one sentence should explain the difference to anyone who understands elementary-school vocabulary.

Let's see how English proficient you are, when you attempt once again to REQUEST my opinion from me, rather than TELLING me what it is, TELLING me what it should be, or demanding that I demonstrate anything to you, as though I owe you something.

Your mother ever tell you you'll catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar? Because I can tell you now, acting as though I'm obligated to justify myself to you is the surest way to get nothing from me but ignored as a troll.

It's called sarcasm you stupid ******* *****.

Here in NJ, that's how we talk to bitches like you.

Are you going to respond about those programs being constitutional or not?

If not, then how about you shut your dick duster, huh?

As a matter of fact, what I'm going to do is what we in Arizona do with misogynistic needledicks like you, assuming we're not in a position to shoot them: ignore them like the puling little boys they are.

Call me if you ever grow testicles and stop fearing women so much. FLUSH!

I knew you wouldn't answer the ******* question you *****.

 

[Toro]

No cuts to defense.

Find someplace else.

This is ridiculous. You can't bend and compromise?

We're in 150 ******* countries.

Why the **** do we need to be in Malaysia, or Diego-Garcia, or Thailand, or Belgium?

It's an enormous waste of money.

Defense is Keynesianism for Republicans.

 

[Toro]

You're changing the subject. What happened to the economy between 2001 and 2006?

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 had a surplus. Marketable debt outstanding fell during the last part of the 90s. That's the debt that gets bought and sold. The rise in total debt was an actuarial accounting function. The total amount of debt in circulation, however, fell.

 

[Toro]

That's funny what I remember is Republicans RUNNING on balancing the budget. Winning, and then having to fight Clinton to enact it.

Revise history much?

of course they ran on balancing the budget! Hell, Reagan ran on balancing the budget. It's the cornerstone of every Republican campaign. They never deliver, of course, but they run on it.

balancing the budget started long before Republicans ran on it in 1994 and took office in 1995. The deficit was reduced in the years prior thanks to a growing economy, a tax increase and smart fiscal policy.

The tax increase, the growing economy and smart fiscal policy continued after 1995. When Republicans finally got control of the executive branch to match their legislative power, government spending spiked and deficits immediately returned as we funded a pharmaceutical company subsidy, a near doubling of farm subsidies and two wars.

The surplus also occurred because of a large increase in capital gains taxes as executives at worthless tech companies cash in billions of dollars in stock options. I believe without those capital gains from the Tech Bubble, there would have been no surplus, although a very small deficit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecille I'll bite.

What's your opinion on the Constitutionality of the NSA, FBI, and CIA? How about the Louisiana Purchase?

I personally find them dubious. It definitely seems like an implied power, but I think if we're looking for strict Constitutional guidelines all 3 of the agencies listed would have to have been set up as a section of the Army or Navy as Army or Navy intelligence (as in some cases they actually were prior to the Cold War). Making them an independent operation is IMHO as questionable as the Welfare clause.

Well, the FBI is part of the Department of Justice, which is about investigating and enforcing federal law inside the United States. The Constitution does give Congress the power to make laws "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." It seems logical, and necessary and proper, that if you're going to have federal criminal laws, you're going to have to have a federal law enforcement body to execute those laws. But no, the FBI obviously isn't mentioned directly in the Constitution.

It gets even more complicated when you consider that the FBI was formed under a very Progressive administration, which favored a more expansive federal government than existed at the time. Mind you, I think Teddy Roosevelt would have shit his pants if he'd seen the extent to which the federal government has been expanded since then.

Foreign intelligence gathering is on even shakier ground Constitutionally, since our Founding Fathers apparently didn't spend a whole lot of time thinking about the need to have a lot to do with other countries beyond sending them ambassadors and making treaties. Not surprising, when they lived in a world where other countries, aside from Canada and Mexico, were months away by ship.

While I would say that foreign intelligence gathering is certainly a proper and appropriate function for the federal government, that's not the same as saying it's actually covered in the Constitution, and I for one would feel better if the necessity had been covered by an Amendment, rather than simply being popped into existence.

As to the Louisiana Purchase, it was apparently presented to Congress as a treaty, which the Constitution certainly gives the President the right to negotiate and Congress the right to ratify. In addition, although it was a land purchase and that might not have been what the Founding Fathers exactly had in mind when they thought of treaties, it WAS an arrangement made for the sake of national security, because Napoleon wasn't the most stable of human beings and not exactly the sort of neighbor one wants, so I would say I consider it appropriate under those circumstances.

Thank you very much for ASKING.

 

[Toro]

I am definitely on board with the idea of cutting out all agricultural and rural subsidies from the Department of Agriculture.

That's one I'm always unsure of. In principle I hate that we have farm subsidies. In practice, its a national security issue. If Agriculture here in the States becomes unprofitable and ceases, then we're dependent on foreign sources of food. Its bad enough we're dependent on foreign oil.

I'd be interested in other ways to help protect American Agriculture, but I think you have to have some sort of program in place.

All agricultural subsidies should be eliminated. Its farm welfare.

This country could feed the world with its agricultural capacity. There is no need for subsidies. Its just a transfer of wealth to a powerful lobby from everyone else.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not to mention we have more than just the constitution to go on. We have multiple writings by the founders from Before and after the constitution.

Take a look at my quotes for example in my sig.

What is so hard to understand about what Jefferson or Madison said about this question, which was already being asked in their life times.

I think you have to be careful pulling in the other Founder writings on interpreting the Constitution. Where they agree, fine, but the Founders were hardly a hive mind. They disagreed on almost everything, sometimes violently. Some were looking to set up the tools for an actual empire, and some were looking at the Fed as a kind of Military Alliance to protect the States who would remain the primary government structures.

Some of the Founders even changed stances on issues over their lives. Especially once the rubber hit the road and they hit issues not covered by the Constitution.

My point is (and I'm not accusing you of doing this btw) that some on this board invoke the Founders without realizing that even the Founders weren't entirely sure how this would play out.

My personal opinion is that I'm shocked we've yet to use the Constitutional Convention option in the Constitution. That was put in place to give the States a check on Federal power. If the Fed is out of hand, lets have the Convention and settle these issues once and for all.

This is why I usually just look at the actual words they all compromised on and put on the ol' lambskin. And if necessary, I refer to a dictionary from that time to tell me what those words meant to the FF. George Washington may have wanted THIS, but the Convention settled on THAT for whatever reason. It's the THAT that counts.

 

[Greenbeard]

As to the Louisiana Purchase, it was apparently presented to Congress as a treaty, which the Constitution certainly gives the President the right to negotiate and Congress the right to ratify.

Funny how elastic some of these provisions can get, isn't it? Give some guys the treaty power and they can tax and spend on anything they like, even things not specifically enumerated.

 

[8537]

Defense is Keynesianism for Republicans.

Lol...excellent observation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As to the Louisiana Purchase, it was apparently presented to Congress as a treaty, which the Constitution certainly gives the President the right to negotiate and Congress the right to ratify.

Funny how elastic some of these provisions can get, isn't it? Give some guys the treaty power and they can tax and spend on anything they like, even things not specifically enumerated.

Not all that elastic. The original intent was to purchase New Orleans and Florida, the former because it controls access to the Gulf of Mexico by way of the Mississippi, sort of an important economic concern and an issue that would be covered by a trade treaty if not by the US ending up owning the city. Treaties were and are quite typically used to settle questions of land ownership. Look at the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. I'd say a treaty getting us possession of the Louisiana Purchase for $15 million and no bloodshed beats the hell out of a treaty that gets us possession of land AFTER having a war.

What did YOU think treaties were used for?