What to cut: The Federal Budget

[Charles_Main]

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.

Just because they did it, does not mean they should have

 

[Greenbeard]

What did YOU think treaties were used for?

The same thing general taxation powers are used for: that which is deemed necessary by the body politic.

Certainly I don't doubt that a host of implied powers are contained within the enumerated ones; I think you're absolutely right. I was just under the impression, from skimming your posts in this thread, that you were a strict constructionist.

Just because they did it, does not mean they should have

I commend you for consistency. And it does indeed seem that in a strict constructionist viewpoint, the U.S. could never have legitimately extended west of the Mississippi. Which is why I continue to believe that a dead document can't govern a living nation.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

If you're using the term "Health and human services" as a blanket term to describe services in that category which include Medicare and Medicade, then yes you are correct. But you said "Department of HHS," which was budgeted $78B for FY 2010.

Remember however, Medicare and Medicade are slated to be paid from payroll taxes, not income tax. I assume if you abolish one or both you abolish the associated payroll tax as well, and you've done nothing to eliminate deficit... Assuming that is your goal, and not just the satisfaction of eliminating a government program.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What did YOU think treaties were used for?

The same thing general taxation powers are used for: that which is deemed necessary by the body politic.

Certainly I don't doubt that a host of implied powers are contained within the enumerated ones; I think you're absolutely right. I was just under the impression, from skimming your posts in this thread, that you were a strict constructionist.

Treaty power isn't implied. It IS enumerated. And this was not an elastic use of an enumerated power. It was used for one of the things treaties are traditionally used for: setting/changing national boundaries.

 

[Trajan]

What did YOU think treaties were used for?

The same thing general taxation powers are used for: that which is deemed necessary by the body politic.

Certainly I don't doubt that a host of implied powers are contained within the enumerated ones; I think you're absolutely right. I was just under the impression, from skimming your posts in this thread, that you were a strict constructionist.

Just because they did it, does not mean they should have

I commend you for consistency. And it does indeed seem that in a strict constructionist viewpoint, the U.S. could never have legitimately extended west of the Mississippi. Which is why I continue to believe that a dead document can't govern a living nation.

dead document? hummm.....

 

[Charles_Main]

What did YOU think treaties were used for?

The same thing general taxation powers are used for: that which is deemed necessary by the body politic.

Certainly I don't doubt that a host of implied powers are contained within the enumerated ones; I think you're absolutely right. I was just under the impression, from skimming your posts in this thread, that you were a strict constructionist.

Just because they did it, does not mean they should have

I commend you for consistency. And it does indeed seem that in a strict constructionist viewpoint, the U.S. could never have legitimately extended west of the Mississippi. Which is why I continue to believe that a dead document can't govern a living nation.

Not sure how it is a dead document myself. Just because it has been violated in the past does not mean we should not try and follow it now.

Also I think you are misunderstanding me. As I do not agree with your interpretation of the treaty process that lead to western expansion. Seems to me that power is clearly enumerated in the constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

If you're using the term "Health and human services" as a blanket term to describe services in that category which include Medicare and Medicade, then yes you are correct. But you said "Department of HHS," which was budgeted $78B for FY 2010.

Remember however, Medicare and Medicade are slated to be paid from payroll taxes, not income tax. I assume if you abolish one or both you abolish the associated payroll tax as well, and you've done nothing to eliminate deficit... Assuming that is your goal, and not just the satisfaction of eliminating a government program.

Look, dimwit, I'm not "using the term", or using any "blanket term to describe services". I'm using the official name of the official government department, the Department of Health and Human Services, of which Kathleen Sebelius is the Secretary. The Department of Health and Human Services, which includes and administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as hundreds of others, had a budget in 2010 of $869-879 billion, according to both Sebelius and the Cato Institute (I think she actually requested approval of 879 and ended up with 869, but I'm not entirely clear on that point, and not willing to go to that much research over $10 billion in this case).

I don't give a rat's ass WHICH taxes they get their budget from. That's irrelevant to how much their budget IS. Furthermore, dumbass, I never said a word about abolishing either of them, so I would be mightily obliged if you would waste no more of my time arguing against a proposition I never made. If you could perhaps confine your arguments to the actual conversation we're having, we might make more progress.

I've cited my sources, Sparky. Let's see yours for your continued insistence that the entire department only had a budget of $78 billion.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

If you're using the term "Health and human services" as a blanket term to describe services in that category which include Medicare and Medicade, then yes you are correct. But you said "Department of HHS," which was budgeted $78B for FY 2010.

Remember however, Medicare and Medicade are slated to be paid from payroll taxes, not income tax. I assume if you abolish one or both you abolish the associated payroll tax as well, and you've done nothing to eliminate deficit... Assuming that is your goal, and not just the satisfaction of eliminating a government program.

Look, dimwit, I'm not "using the term", or using any "blanket term to describe services". I'm using the official name of the official government department, the Department of Health and Human Services, of which Kathleen Sebelius is the Secretary. The Department of Health and Human Services, which includes and administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as hundreds of others, had a budget in 2010 of $869-879 billion, according to both Sebelius and the Cato Institute (I think she actually requested approval of 879 and ended up with 869, but I'm not entirely clear on that point, and not willing to go to that much research over $10 billion in this case).

I don't give a rat's ass WHICH taxes they get their budget from. That's irrelevant to how much their budget IS. Furthermore, dumbass, I never said a word about abolishing either of them, so I would be mightily obliged if you would waste no more of my time arguing against a proposition I never made. If you could perhaps confine your arguments to the actual conversation we're having, we might make more progress.

I've cited my sources, Sparky. Let's see yours for your continued insistence that the entire department only had a budget of $78 billion.

Wow, you are an incredibly obnoxious individual. I don't use the C-word, but boy if I did. I can't imagine what a joy you must be in real life.

I misspoke, but my point remains the same. According to dhhs.gov, you are correct and the outlays for Medicare and Medicaid are covered under the DHHS budget. The $78 Billion I quoted refers only to the departments discretionary budget. This is the only portion that can be "Cut." The rest (the overwhelming majority of which is Medicare and Medicaid) is mandatory; The POTUS and government do not have the ability to "Cut" it on a whim.

You should by all means send a letter to the WH and let them know that you don't give a rats ass where the money came from, I'm sure they'll immediately cut benefits to millions of seniors who have paid their entire lives just to avoid the imminent displeasure of discussing it with you further.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you're using the term "Health and human services" as a blanket term to describe services in that category which include Medicare and Medicade, then yes you are correct. But you said "Department of HHS," which was budgeted $78B for FY 2010.

Remember however, Medicare and Medicade are slated to be paid from payroll taxes, not income tax. I assume if you abolish one or both you abolish the associated payroll tax as well, and you've done nothing to eliminate deficit... Assuming that is your goal, and not just the satisfaction of eliminating a government program.

Look, dimwit, I'm not "using the term", or using any "blanket term to describe services". I'm using the official name of the official government department, the Department of Health and Human Services, of which Kathleen Sebelius is the Secretary. The Department of Health and Human Services, which includes and administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as hundreds of others, had a budget in 2010 of $869-879 billion, according to both Sebelius and the Cato Institute (I think she actually requested approval of 879 and ended up with 869, but I'm not entirely clear on that point, and not willing to go to that much research over $10 billion in this case).

I don't give a rat's ass WHICH taxes they get their budget from. That's irrelevant to how much their budget IS. Furthermore, dumbass, I never said a word about abolishing either of them, so I would be mightily obliged if you would waste no more of my time arguing against a proposition I never made. If you could perhaps confine your arguments to the actual conversation we're having, we might make more progress.

I've cited my sources, Sparky. Let's see yours for your continued insistence that the entire department only had a budget of $78 billion.

Wow, you are an incredibly obnoxious individual. I don't use the C-word, but boy if I did. I can't imagine what a joy you must be in real life.

I misspoke, but my point remains the same. According to dhhs.gov, you are correct and the outlays for Medicare and Medicaid are covered under the DHHS budget. The $78 Billion I quoted refers only to the departments discretionary budget. This is the only portion that can be "Cut." The rest (the overwhelming majority of which is Medicare and Medicaid) is mandatory; The POTUS and government do not have the ability to "Cut" it on a whim.

You should by all means send a letter to the WH and let them know that you don't give a rats ass where the money came from, I'm sure they'll immediately cut benefits to millions of seniors who have paid their entire lives just to avoid the imminent displeasure of discussing it with you further.

No, you CAN'T imagine it, because in real life, I only associate with intelligent people, so I would be out of YOUR league. Furthermore, YOU opened this particular discussion thusly:

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

So if you're going to get your panties all in a ruffle and pussyache to me about how unpleasant and obnoxious I am when you get back EXACTLY what you put out, I'd suggest you review what you're putting out BEFORE we get to the point of you sniveling at me. And do please stop flattering yourself that I would ever, EVER be interested in being the slightest bit appealing to a lower life form such as yourself.

You're damned right you misspoke, AND have now done it in at least three posts in a row. First, you were dead wrong TWICE about what the actual budget of the Department of HHS is, and have now been dead wrong TWICE about what I have proposed concerning Medicare and Medicaid. If you can't be bothered to read the ******* posts that you're planning to get all frothy about, explain to me why I should bother reading any of your posts at all?

I'm not going to tell you again, peabrain. DO NOT waste my time arguing against points I never made. If you want to get up in someone's face about the "heinous crime" of suggesting that Medicare and Medicaid should be cut, then kindly go find someone who has suggested it and stop putting your filthy, ignorant words into my mouth. Not only are you drastically underqualified to form any sort of opinion on my behalf, but I also just brushed my teeth, and I don't want to have to do it again to get the bad taste of your stupidity out.

 

[Greenbeard]

Treaty power isn't implied. It IS enumerated.

No kidding. The implicit part is this:

It was used for one of the things treaties are traditionally used for [emphasis mine]: setting/changing national boundaries.

See how in the bold you've inserted an implicit power associated with the treaty power and you've used that to justify spending on an item not explicitly allowed under Article I, Section 8? That's what I'm talking about.

Of course it should be obvious that treaties ought to allow for transferring money and territory (and not simply, say, establishing rules governing international commerce) and thus any reasonable reading of the Constitution would involve reading between the lines and finding the unenumerated but obviously acceptable implicit power associated with that provision. In that I agree with you. This, of course, is exactly why strict constructionism is silly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Treaty power isn't implied. It IS enumerated.

No kidding. The implicit part is this:

It was used for one of the things treaties are traditionally used for [emphasis mine]: setting/changing national boundaries.

See how in the bold you've inserted an implicit power associated with the treaty power and you've used that to justify spending on an item not explicitly allowed under Article I, Section 8? That's what I'm talking about.

Of course it should be obvious that treaties ought to allow for transferring money and territory (and not simply, say, establishing rules governing international commerce) and thus any reasonable reading of the Constitution would involve reading between the lines and finding the unenumerated but obviously acceptable implicit power associated with that provision. In that I agree with you. This, of course, is exactly why strict constructionism is silly.

Uh, no. You're just trying to split hairs to be difficult now. "Implicit powers" would be "powers not actually enumerated in the Constitution". It is not "uses of enumerated powers not enumerated", since the Constitution doesn't go into lists of occasions and situations for the use of ANY of the powers. The President has the power to negotiate treaties; Congress has the power to ratify treaties. Period. The Constitution no more specifies WHICH treaties to WHICH purpose than it specifies how many divisions or units the Army can have, but that doesn't make the composition of the military an "implicit power", and it doesn't make involving money in a treaty an "implicit power", either.

 

[Greenbeard]

It is not "uses of enumerated powers not enumerated", since the Constitution doesn't go into lists of occasions and situations for the use of ANY of the powers.

Exactly! Which is precisely why "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" has such wide application, extending beyond the ink on the page.

As I've said for several posts now, we don't disagree on this.

 

[rdean]

Creating a net -670,000 private sector jobs over an eight year period, leaving office with 780K jobs per month and 7% of GDP per year being lost is the "second best economy post war"?

Try looking at the years BEFORE the Democrats took control of Congress.

He won't and you know it. Notice how he has to carefully word his sentence in order to appear correct. Except that his lies fell out from under him From the time that Bush had a congress that was controlled by the GOP until the time the Democrat party took control of the congress, there was significant gains in employment and the unemployed numbers remained pretty stable around 4%.

The down slide in the economy began soon after Democrats took control of the government purse. The job losses (I know they blame it on Bush, but really, who the **** cares what they thing anyway?) are wholly the Democrats fault.

On top of that, they had a candidate who ran saying he knew how to fix the economy and he'd have it fixed right away. Nearly two years later, it still isn't fixed. Incompetence in all facets of their economic philosophy and they want to blame job losses on Bush? Too funny if you think about it.

Democrats "controlled" the senate 49 to 49. That's a lot of ******* control. What was passed that was as significant as a 2.4 trillion dollar tax cut, a trillion dollar drug bill and deregulating Wall Street?

Can't you guys ever be honest? Ever? It just isn't possible? You don't know how? No sense of responsibility?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is not "uses of enumerated powers not enumerated", since the Constitution doesn't go into lists of occasions and situations for the use of ANY of the powers.

Exactly! Which is precisely why "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" has such wide application, extending beyond the ink on the page.

As I've said for several posts now, we don't disagree on this.

Yes, we do.

People TRY to make a wide application to the first sentence in Section 8, because they're trying to make "common Defence and general Welfare" a directive, instead of an explanation. The actual power being enumerated there - that of laying and collecting taxes, duties, etc. - is pretty specific.

But since you brought it up, that sentence gives Congress the power to collect taxes in order to provide for the common defense of the United States, so right there you have another reason why signing a treaty for the Louisiana Purchase in order to avoid an unstable neighbor like Napoleon Bonaparte was not an "elastic" use of an enumerated power. They used the enumerated power to collect taxes to fund another enumerated power to ratify a treaty for the specified explanation of defending the country. Nothing elastic or implied about it.

Thank you. Moving on.

 

[Greenbeard]

People TRY to make a wide application to the first sentence in Section 8, because they're trying to make "common Defence and general Welfare" a directive, instead of an explanation. [...] But since you brought it up, that sentence gives Congress the power to collect taxes in order to provide for the common defense of the United States, so right there you have another reason why signing a treaty for the Louisiana Purchase in order to avoid an unstable neighbor like Napoleon Bonaparte was not an "elastic" use of an enumerated power.

Again, we agree. Interpretations of the "common defense" are indeed an acceptable way to justify spending. As are, of course, interpretations of the common defense's partner in crime, the general welfare. Either one is more than enough to justify the Louisiana Purchase. And, as history has shown, quite a few other things.

 

[Paulie]

People TRY to make a wide application to the first sentence in Section 8, because they're trying to make "common Defence and general Welfare" a directive, instead of an explanation. [...] But since you brought it up, that sentence gives Congress the power to collect taxes in order to provide for the common defense of the United States, so right there you have another reason why signing a treaty for the Louisiana Purchase in order to avoid an unstable neighbor like Napoleon Bonaparte was not an "elastic" use of an enumerated power.

Again, we agree. Interpretations of the "common defense" are indeed an acceptable way to justify spending. As are, of course, interpretations of the common defense's partner in crime, the general welfare. Either one is more than enough to justify the Louisiana Purchase. And, as history has shown, quite a few other things.

Why bother?

She justifies any expansion of military power or federal law enforcement power on something she interprets as being "implied", in the absence of any actual specific listing of what's authorized.

But throw some food to people who might not make enough money to adequately feed themselves in a deep recession, on an implied interpretation of what would be considered "general welfare"?

**** THAT.

I suppose it's considered completely fine that there would be a specific percentage of the population literally starving to death.

 

[Care4all]

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.

If you're using the term "Health and human services" as a blanket term to describe services in that category which include Medicare and Medicade, then yes you are correct. But you said "Department of HHS," which was budgeted $78B for FY 2010.

Remember however, Medicare and Medicade are slated to be paid from payroll taxes, not income tax. I assume if you abolish one or both you abolish the associated payroll tax as well, and you've done nothing to eliminate deficit... Assuming that is your goal, and not just the satisfaction of eliminating a government program.

Look, dimwit, I'm not "using the term", or using any "blanket term to describe services". I'm using the official name of the official government department, the Department of Health and Human Services, of which Kathleen Sebelius is the Secretary. The Department of Health and Human Services, which includes and administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as hundreds of others, had a budget in 2010 of $869-879 billion, according to both Sebelius and the Cato Institute (I think she actually requested approval of 879 and ended up with 869, but I'm not entirely clear on that point, and not willing to go to that much research over $10 billion in this case).

I don't give a rat's ass WHICH taxes they get their budget from. That's irrelevant to how much their budget IS. Furthermore, dumbass, I never said a word about abolishing either of them, so I would be mightily obliged if you would waste no more of my time arguing against a proposition I never made. If you could perhaps confine your arguments to the actual conversation we're having, we might make more progress.

I've cited my sources, Sparky. Let's see yours for your continued insistence that the entire department only had a budget of $78 billion.

the dept has a budget of 78 billion for 2010 2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia you can get a gvt link as a source from the link i posted. *78 billion is not chump change that could be cut, either

 

[code1211]

Creating a net -670,000 private sector jobs over an eight year period, leaving office with 780K jobs per month and 7% of GDP per year being lost is the "second best economy post war"?

I didn't know if I should responf to you or the Rabbi, but You win!

We have a number of people who are in charge of a number of departments in government. Presumably, they understand what they are trying to do and how to do it.

Cut the whole Federal Budget 10% and try mightily to not pass anther Failed Stimulus Bill.

What to cut? Leave it up to the department heads. If the Executive, this includes the Big 0, do not agree with the cuts, he will need to step in and straighten them out. This will require a guy wearing his Big Boy Pants like Chistie in New Jersey or "My Man Mitch" in Indiana.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that indicates that the Big 0 has the ability, the intelligence or the courage to do this. This lack of ability, intelligence and courage will lead to his opponent, no matter who that is, winning in 2012.

 

[Care4all]

the Department of defense is the biggest budget there is, that is discretionary and that can be cut....$700 plus billion....we only collect about 1.0 trillion yearly in income taxes...that's about 70% of our discretionary money to spend, spent in this one area.

In business, this is the area that would be scrutinized first, in making cuts, then the other areas of business to follow.... penny pinching here or there with a dept or 2, that accounts for 1% of your money is considered a waste of good time....concentrate on cutting the BIGGIES first, then just wipe out the 1%'ers when you are done with that....

 

[Avorysuds]

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

Then the very next morning they cut...

Medicaid

Medicare

Obamacare

SS

DoE

The Fed

Pull out most of our troops from basses set up around the globe

Cut all of these things by drawing them down over so many years, not just BAM gone overnight.

Your list was good though, for like a very basic start… Now if the Democrats could have just stuck to their word and de funded the wars when they go into Congress, like the promised 4 years ago…


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg