As much as I'd love to argue this point, the sad thing is I can't because it's true.

Thank you for writing this. Do you have any idea how forgiving the debts of third world countries will affect our deficit? You seem to have studied this more than I.

Another thing. There are supposed to be more tax breaks, correct? Yet my parents, both public school teachers, are having to pay $1,200 for federal taxes. This is the most they've had to pay in years. Something doesn't strike me as right here.

After reading this I was interested in what the IRS collects in taxes per year. In FY 03, the IRS collected (before refunds) $1,952,929,000,000. That is a difference of $0.6 Trillion (if I did my math right)!

To me, if they want to get serious about balancing the budget they should use that Matthew Lesko's books as a blueprint!! That should make a pretty decent dent without cutting any programs... ;~D

Then they should start cutting the pork that has no constitutional backing!!

The last one we had, we had a moderate democrat in the white house (see liberals?  I said something nice about Slick willie) and a Republican congress.

Since, barring an implosion of the republicans (unlikely), congress will remain in their hands in the foreseeable future, does anyone wonder why Goldwater conservatives/Libertarians want a decent democrat to vote for?

Unlike DR Miller, I will not argue it as I am POed about it as well.  But before you rope me in on your raise tax bandwagon, forget it.  CUT SPENDING!

I agree the budget first needs to be brought into balance and then we need to begin generating a surplus that is applied to paying down the debt. If we had a annual surplus of $200 billion it would take 30 years to repay our national debt.

To accomplish that would require about $600 Billion per year($ 400 Billion to balance and $200 Billion for the surples to repay the debt). The size of this task, can only be achieved by a combination of policy changes.

First we need tax and fiscal policies to increase the growth of GDP which will generate added tax revenue.

We need to eliminate pork ($25 Billion) and cut other non essential spending which does not mean turning our backs on those Americans in need.

Finally, no combimnation of the above will produce anything close to $600 billion every year. In addition, next year we will have another $50 billion peryear for the Bush prescription drug plan and the president's budget does not include the cost of the Iraq war or the transition cost of his Social security Plan.

That will mean that tax cuts for the top 5% will have to go to have any chance to balance our budget even with the most dreatic cuts and increased GDP growth. The imbalance is too large and when you look at the budget it is clear, there are real limits as to how much can be cut given the need for defense, the aging of our popilation and the number of children that need to be educated. The total non- defense non entitlement spending is just over $400 billion and most of that could not be eliminated. The real shame is the growing interest that is taking away the funding from everything. This is because for 21 of the last 24 years we have insisted on spending more than we taxed. That growing interest can only be reduced by generating an annual surplus and use that surplus to pay down the debt and thuis reduce the interest. As interest rate increase the interest on our growing debt will increase due to higher rates. The increase in short term rates from 1% to 2.5% has already added $15 Billion to the annual interest cost and the interest buys us nothing. It only takes the available tax revenue off the top!

CUT SPENDING!

This is it, in a nutshell. A budget that amounts to over $8500 per person can only be described as wasteful.

I do find the entire budget mess disturbing. We will have to pay it back. The part that bothers me the most is the proposed cuts to HUD (housing for poor people, community centers, urban renewal - where your city gets a large portion of its budget) and Medicaid (health insurance for the poor). It strikes me as a contradiction that W. regularly proclaim himself a "born-again" Christian, and maintain the tax cut for the richest of Americans while cutting services for the poorest.

tax cut for the richest of Americans while cutting services for the poorest.

So when did they appoint you the keeper of their money?  Did you earn it? 

Maybe, we have to cut spending. and before you bemoan the 'cuts' to HUD, please show how much it is being cut.  Actual figures please, not hyperbole or smoke and mirrors.

The part that bothers me the most is the proposed cuts to HUD (housing for poor people, community centers, urban renewal - where your city gets a large portion of its budget) and Medicaid (health insurance for the poor). It strikes me as a contradiction that W. regularly proclaim himself a "born-again" Christian, and maintain the tax cut for the richest of Americans while cutting services for the poorest.

sqrrl,

I can't say I disagree with you there. While I believe in fiscally conservative politics, I would far rather my taxes go to those ends than to continued military buildup and action (I remain a pacifist, even while seeing the occasional necessity of war). And a budget that amounts to such a staggering per capita amount should certainly be able to apportion reasonably for basic health care and housing.

However, that being put aside, we are in a financial crisis. Generations of American politicians have put off the burden of repayment onto future generations, effectively living beyond their means in the hopes that their grandchildren's grandchildren will pay for it when they are no longer around. THIS CANNOT CONTINUE! It would be akin to a family making $20,000 a year living on a budget of $25,000 a year...while you may be able to get away with it for a time, the long term result is bankruptcy.

The end result of suh bankruptcy is that we become, as kingbee so eloquently stated it, "the most preeminent third world nation". We will suddenly have NO surplus to apportion to disaster aid victims around the world, NO money for projects of compassion, but will fall into economic collapse. It's already starting in many ways, as a good number of American communities have NO public transportation service to reach them, putting us on par with some of the more remote areas of the Australian outback.

In the simplest terms and the most convenient definitions, something's gotta give. Frankly, we need to put partisanship aside and find a way to live within our budget, not continually increase taxes to meet the whims of a horribly overburdened bureaucracy.

After reading this I was interested in what the IRS collects in taxes per year. In FY 03, the IRS collected (before refunds) $1,952,929,000,000. That is a difference of $0.6 Trillion (if I did my math right)!

BEFORE REFUNDS

Now while income taxes aren't the entire revenue, we already go in short. How much does the IRS give back in refunds every year?

BEFORE REFUNDS Now while income taxes aren't the entire revenue, we already go in short. How much does the IRS give back in refunds every year?

You can always refuse yours. In fact, there is no law that says you cant pay more in taxes than what is due.

put your money where you beliefs are, then talk to us.

Dr. Guy

It's out there, you've just got to choose to read it.

Here are the links:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/02/08/bush_spending_plan_hits_social_programs/

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-assess8feb08,0,7191816.story?coll=la-home-headlines



here's one on Republicans pissed about the budget

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-budget9feb09,1,2061815.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true



From the Washington Post:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development's budget would shrink by about $3.7 billion, or 11.5 percent, for a total of $28.5 billion. Much of those cuts would come from a reorganization plan that would send the agency's multibillion-dollar community development programs to the Commerce Department.

The administration's proposal, which must by approved by Congress, would also cut a number of other programs that provide housing assistance to low-income Americans. It would cut housing aid for the disabled by $118 million, or almost half. It would also cut funding for housing assistance programs for those with AIDS, for Native Americans, for programs that pay to rebuild the government's most decrepit public housing and for the agency's lead abatement programs.

the link for it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget06/budget06Agencies.html

And one of the best articles yet (Boston Globe, 2/8/05):

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's plan to make deep cuts in a popular community development program was harshly criticized by mayors, who said such a move would undermine efforts to provide affordable housing, create jobs and keep other urban renewal efforts afloat.
ADVERTISEMENT


Mayors and county officials urged Congress on Tuesday to reject Bush's proposal, part of the administration's 2006 budget plan.

"This will have a devastating economic impact on communities across this country," said Don Plusquellic, mayor of Akron, Ohio, and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley said Bush is seeking to weaken the finances of American cities at a time when mayors are already dealing with budget crunches from mounting homeland security costs.

"These cuts are sad, irresponsible and dishonest," O'Malley said. "With a budget-cut ax, he is attacking American cities, he is attacking the metropolitan core."

The Community Development Block Grant program, started in 1974, provides money to more than 1,000 municipalities.

Generally, counties with at least 200,000 residents and cities with at least 50,000 residents automatically receive a grant each year. The government must sign off on a municipality's plan to ensure money is being used to help low-income residents.

States also get money to disburse to smaller communities, which must apply each year.

The program has been a perennial target of Republican presidents since the Reagan administration, though Congress nearly always restores whatever money the White House wants to cut. A harsh fight over Bush's plan is expected.

The administration wants to move the $4.7 billion community development program from the Housing and Urban Development Department to the Commerce Department. Commerce would also absorb another 17 community development programs -- which disburse an additional $1 billion in grants -- from other Cabinet agencies.

Bush would spend $3.7 billion on the new Commerce program -- about $2 billion less than the 18 programs together get now.

The cuts are part of a broader effort by the administration to trim the federal government's record $427 billion budget deficit. Bush has targeted 150 programs for elimination or drastic cuts that he says fail to meet goals, duplicate other services or are not essential for the federal government.

"Spending discipline requires difficult choices. Every government program was created with good intentions, but not all are matching good intentions with good results," Bush said in an address Tuesday to the Detroit Economic Club.

The mayors group, along with the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and several business organizations, urged Bush to leave the block grant program untouched.

The groups said the program in 2004 created or retained more than 90,000 jobs.

Cities also often use community development grant money to attract private funding for urban renewal projects. In 2004, every community development grant dollar brought in about $2.79 of private financing, the officials said.

They pointed to numerous projects they said blossomed because of community development dollars, such as a business redevelopment project in Los Angeles that attracted a new supermarket, other stores and restaurants into an underserved neighborhood. The project created more than 500 jobs, the officials said.

Republican James Garner, mayor of Hempstead, N.Y., said his city uses program dollars to help fund Boys and Girls clubs and other youth activities that help keep troubled kids out of gangs.


Take it easy,

Sqrrldrw

Do you have any idea how forgiving the debts of third world countries will affect our deficit?

I haven't checked into this, but I haven't forgotten the question either. I am wondering if the best answer to this problem wouldn't lie in private sector contributions to forgive third world debt (maybe in addition to the "gift to reduce the public debt" option, the IRS could add a "gift to reduce third world debt" option and apply that amount to the appropriate agencies?)

Reply By: sqrrldrwPosted: Thursday, February 10, 2005 Dr. Guy It's out there, you've just got to choose to read it.

Try again.  What was the budget this year?  last year?  Do you understand the concept of baseline budgeting?  I think not.