What to cut: The Federal Budget

[Old Rocks]

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.

Really? Any one of them match the years that Clinton was President? I seem to remember the job market could not even provide jobs for the people graduating from high school and college.

Bush and the Republicans were and are economic incompetants that nearly put the world into a Second Great Republican Depression.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

do i need to read one particular link to ascertain that the o/p is a reactionary? or is it possible that i've read enough of his stuff to KNOW he and his buddies are reactionaries.

and the bulk of our expenditures are military.

why would i want people's health to be impaired.

should we cut off your social security? your medical care when you're old?

or is it fair to say that the stupidity of running two wars and cutting taxes at the same time is unparalleled in human history?

 

[Greenbeard]

A lot of State budgets are stressed due to Federal mandates and programs such as Medicade.

Unfunded mandates, a really good reason to gen up support for nullification.

Medicaid is neither unfunded nor a mandate.

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.

We also have their actions when actually governing to consider. For some reason those don't seem to get as much attention, e.g. Washington federalizing the militia to put down an anti-tax uprising, Washington and Madison chartering a national bank, and Jefferson, oh, Jefferson.

You know, in those days the schism was between Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists, like Hamilton himself, embraced a fairly broad interpretation of the general welfare clause. The Democratic-Republicans took a more strict constructionist view. Indeed, the Jefferson quote in your sig is a paraphrase of Jefferson's description (in a letter to to Albert Gallatin) of this philosophical difference between the two parties.

Five years after writing that letter, now President, Jefferson was put in the odd position of spending a large sum of money in pursuit of an action not unambiguously authorized by the Constitution. The Federalists, their power dwindling at this point, argued against the Louisiana Purchase on constitutional grounds (such naked opportunism!). What did Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans present as a counterargument to justify their purchase? Why, the general welfare clause! Here's a leading Democratic-Republican in the House, Caesar Rodney, making the case:

A recurrence to the Constitution will show that it is predicated on the principle of the United States acquiring territory, either by war, treaty, or purchase. There was one part of that instrument within whose capricious grasp all these modes of acquisition were embraced. By the Constitution Congress 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." To provide for the general welfare! The import of these terms is very comprehensive indeed. If this general delegation of authority be not at variance with other particular powers specially granted, nor restricted by them; if it be not in any degree comprehended in those subsequently delegated, I cannot perceive why, within the fair meaning of this general provision is not include the power of increasing our territory, if necessary for the general welfare or common defence.​

Four years later that fine soldier for the party became Jefferson's attorney general. He retained the post for most of Madison's first term.

Politics wasn't invented after the founding generation died. Nor was selective (and sometimes internally inconsistent) interpretation of the Constitution's vague language. Welcome to America.

 

[Charles_Main]

A lot of State budgets are stressed due to Federal mandates and programs such as Medicade.

Unfunded mandates, a really good reason to gen up support for nullification.

Medicaid is neither unfunded nor a mandate.

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.

We also have their actions when actually governing to consider. For some reason those don't seem to get as much attention, e.g. Washington federalizing the militia to put down an anti-tax uprising, Washington and Madison chartering a national bank, and Jefferson, oh, Jefferson.

Power corrupts absolutely. I am more interested in what they said before they had power, than what they did when they had it.

Medicaid is neither unfunded nor a mandate.

So are you saying that the new Mandates on states to expand coverage are not unfunded mandates?

 

[Dick Tuck]

I think it's high time that an amendment is created outlining the EXACT specifics of what is covered under "general welfare". And "regulating commerce" for that matter.

Everyone comes to an agreement on it, and it's set in stone. Whatever isn't listed, is not authorized.

Both sides will have to give a little, but in the end it will save a ton of money because there is obviously way too much money being spent in the name of that vague ass phrase.

It should not take an amendment. The founders were very clear in their writings. The words General welfare in the preamble do NOT give the government ANY power not listed elsewhere in the ACTUAL body of the document.

This still assumes that when they said "general welfare" they were specifically talking about only those things mentioned next. That is simply an interpretation of what is written, and nothing more.

And general welfare is not just mentioned in the preamble. This was already covered.

Had they not said something as vague as "general welfare", I would agree, because then we only have those very specific things mentioned in section 8 to go on.

They mentioned general welfare in the most vague way possible.

Vague? Not hardly.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

That's pretty clear to me.

 

[Greenbeard]

Power corrupts absolutely. I am more interested in what they said before they had power, than what they did when they had it.

We're all selective, aren't we?

So are you saying that the new Mandates on states to expand coverage are not unfunded mandates?

No state is required to participate in Medicaid. Arizona didn't set up its Medicaid program until 1982, 17 years after the program was authorized by law.

As for whether the Medicaid expansions are funded, they're entirely funded by the feds for two years, after which states get a 90%+ match rate for new eligibles. On what planet is a program in which someone else is paying more than 90 cents of every dollar of your costs "unfunded"?

 

[Paulie]

In real life, I don't associate with people so stupid, rude, and hubristic as to think they can put words in my mouth and then take me to task for them. In all facets of my life, I am as pleasurable to know as your behavior deserves for me to be. Think on that.

Once again, if you have a question to ask me, then ASK it. Don't tell me what you think my answer to it is. Courtesy is given to those who earn it.

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?

 

[johnrocks]

A lot of State budgets are stressed due to Federal mandates and programs such as Medicade.

Unfunded mandates, a really good reason to gen up support for nullification.

Medicaid is neither unfunded nor a mandate.

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.

We also have their actions when actually governing to consider. For some reason those don't seem to get as much attention, e.g. Washington federalizing the militia to put down an anti-tax uprising, Washington and Madison chartering a national bank, and Jefferson, oh, Jefferson.

You know, in those days the schism was between Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists, like Hamilton himself, embraced a fairly broad interpretation of the general welfare clause. The Democratic-Republicans took a more strict constructionist view. Indeed, the Jefferson quote in your sig is a paraphrase of Jefferson's description (in a letter to to Albert Gallatin) of this philosophical difference between the two parties.

Five years after writing that letter, now President, Jefferson was put in the odd position of spending a large sum of money in pursuit of an action not unambiguously authorized by the Constitution. The Federalists, their power dwindling at this point, argued against the Louisiana Purchase on constitutional grounds (such naked opportunism!). What did Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans present as a counterargument to justify their purchase? Why, the general welfare clause! Here's a leading Democratic-Republican in the House, Caesar Rodney, making the case:

A recurrence to the Constitution will show that it is predicated on the principle of the United States acquiring territory, either by war, treaty, or purchase. There was one part of that instrument within whose capricious grasp all these modes of acquisition were embraced. By the Constitution Congress 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." To provide for the general welfare! The import of these terms is very comprehensive indeed. If this general delegation of authority be not at variance with other particular powers specially granted, nor restricted by them; if it be not in any degree comprehended in those subsequently delegated, I cannot perceive why, within the fair meaning of this general provision is not include the power of increasing our territory, if necessary for the general welfare or common defence.​

Four years later that fine soldier for the party became Jefferson's attorney general. He retained the post for most of Madison's first term.

Politics wasn't invented after the founding generation died. Nor was selective (and sometimes internally inconsistent) interpretation of the Constitution's vague language. Welcome to America.

Call it whatever you want but it looks like it is still causing deficits
NHPR.org - State Medicaid Running a Deficit State Medicaid Running a Deficit

Medicaid costs raise state deficit nearly $200M Medicaid costs raise state deficit nearly $200M

State faces deficit over Medicaid funding loss State faces deficit over Medicaid funding loss | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Economists warn of another big Florida budget deficit

Economists warn that Florida faces another budget deficit, mostly due to the growing Medicaid rolls.

Read more: Economists warn of another big Florida budget deficit - South Florida - MiamiHerald.com

 

[Charles_Main]

Power corrupts absolutely. I am more interested in what they said before they had power, than what they did when they had it.

We're all selective, aren't we?

So are you saying that the new Mandates on states to expand coverage are not unfunded mandates?

No state is required to participate in Medicaid. Arizona didn't set up its Medicaid program until 1982, 17 years after the program was authorized by law.

As for whether the Medicaid expansions are funded, they're entirely funded by the feds for two years, after which states get a 90%+ match rate for new eligibles. On what planet is a program in which someone else is paying more than 90 cents of every dollar of your costs "unfunded"?

1- I do not think of it as being selective. As most people agree Power corrupts so I simply give more weight to what they said before they had power, then I do to their actions once they had it. If you believe that power corrupts. then that is rather logical.

2- As far as Medicaid not being Mandatory. Sure you are technically right, but good luck to any politician that tries to repeal it in their state. They would not stand a chance, so in effect the states are stuck with it.

Unfunded simply means that we are spending in the red to pay for the programs as it is. We do not have the tax dollars at any level to go around and pay for it all. That is why, I at least call them unfunded. That and the Fed has asked states to expand coverage with out helping them pay for it. Well actually they are helping them pay for it. In one bill after another with Money for the states attached to it. But they did not fund the expansions in the Health care bill.

 

[Trajan]

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

thats been done and in the act of being done, it woulds help if you kept up.

Next?

 

[Trajan]

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.

thats been done and in the act of being done..........

Next?

 

[Paulie]

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.

thats been done and in the act of being done..........

Next?

Bringing home some soldiers from a war we never should have started in the first place does not constitute "cutting defense".

You wanna show us where else there's any kind of meaningful cuts being done?

 

[Trajan]

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

The department of Education. Next?

i know that's not something the rightwingnuts make much use of... but some of us think it's important.

what percentage of the federal budget is the department of education?

now what percentage of the federal budget are military expenditures?

thats a a poor yardstick jillian, you must realize that (?).

if cuts are going to take place they must be meaningful and no dollar allocated left unexamined.

Defesne has taken sveral large cuts the latest being another downgrade in the number of F-35s...Senate appropriators reduce funding for Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - TheHill.com

a 25% reduction in the previous allotted number of aircraft.


2 new super carriers ( the first of the 3 initially ordered, the Gerald Ford class) one already partially funded has been cut and they are considering scrapping plans for the third ( one is being built right now, for delivery in 2014).


the number of F-22 fighters that the air force requires, has been slimmed down to 187, spread out over several years far short of the 400 they asked for........

those prgms. account for approx. 100 Billion dollars when the dust clears.

The defense budget for 2010 is approx. 533 Billion...

 

[Darkwind]

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.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

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."

 

[8537]

[ the only one there was then.
[

Nice try, but no. Deliberately trying to conflate and confuse community aid to the poor with government subsidies to the poor is just dishonest. And that IS what England had: community aid. The welfare of the vulnerable in the late 18th and early 19th centuries: Gilbert's Act of 1782, by Samantha Shave

The queen demanded that communities provide aid to those who could not survive - a minimum wage, food etc....If that's not government demanding welfare, what is?

 

[syrenn]

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.

 

[8537]

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.

God you look stupid. Notice i DID just a few posts later.

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%.

6.3% is not 4%....except in stupidity land.

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.

How did Dems taking office in Jan of 2007 cause the housing market to start losing value in Mid 2006?

Which legislation did Dems pass in 2007 that created a recession in December of 2007?

 

[JWBooth]

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.

Not deep enough to suit me, but hell, I'll take it.