Balanced Budget? Not on MY Watch

Published on February 8, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

See, this is what hacks me about the "big two" parties (dem & rep).

I remember, when Clinton was president, the "balanced budget" was a HUGE priority. The Democrats were the big, bad guys because they couldn't muster a budget that reduced deficit spending. The Republicans ran in 1994 with fanfare and a "Contract with America" that proposed, among other things, just that. It was a PR coup for the GOP. The government shut down over the differences between the Democrat and the Congressional Budget, and the GOP shouted that a balanced budget was a priority for America.

My how times have changed.

Trusting in the amnesiac tendencies that Americans tend to have as regards to politics, the GOP continues to increase their deficit spending further and further. The $2.57 TRILLION (that's TRILLION, as in $2,570,000,000,000) budget does not even include expenditures for the war in Iraq, guaranteed to be quite costly to say the least. And that's just one year's budget.

To put it in terms the average American can understand, the $2.57 trillion proposed budget equals:

$8,566.67 for every man, woman and child in America (giving a family of four an average liability of over $34,000...past the median income for said family)
50 times Bill Gates' net worth.

The end result of such excessive spending is simply: bankruptcy. We cannot maintain current spending levels without DRASTICALLY increasing taxes on Americans. As the dollar continues to fall on the international market, the crisis intensifies even further. We need to return to our call for fiscal responsibility and press for the President and Congress to commit to a budget that RESPONSIBLY manages our money in as efficient a manner as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish

Comments (Page 2)

drmiler

on Feb 10, 2005

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.

There seems to be A LOT this person does not understand.

COL Gene

on Feb 10, 2005

The problem with our Federal budget is much of it is Mandatory spending or interest on the national debt. Mandatory spendinmg is Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, interest and pensions. That is $1.5 Trillion and is not subject to cuts.

The so called Discretionary consists of Military, which is really not optional and than all other elements of our government. The military is 443 Billion without the Iraq war. All other discretionary is 487 Billion. Thus, there are no combination of cuts that can come close to eliminating the 425 Billion of the deficit and several hudred billion surplus that is needed to begin repaying almost $8 Trillion of our national debt. The tax cuts for the top 5% simply can not be afforded given the reality of the budget.

drmiler

on Feb 11, 2005

Col you seem to think you have all the answers on the United States fiscal problems and opportunities. I'm here to tell you that you don't have ALL the answers/fixes. There are people who get paid to figure out these things and you ain't it. For all your much vaunted education the people who get paid to do this have a better one. And I would dare say they know better than you on how to fix things.

COL Gene

on Feb 11, 2005

The fact is that thoes people you talk about are not fixing our problems. Over the past 24 years, we have gone from a deficit of $909 Billion to almost $8 Trillion and growing. The objective of Bush is not stop the deficit but reduce its growth. That is not the answer. We must balance the budget and begin developoing a real surplus (like at the end of the Clinton Term) and repay the debt!

I have run both for profit and non-profit corporations and never ran them into the ground. The basic principal that you can not spend more than your income will not change. I know Bush has some very smart people working for him. Problem is thay are not looking at solving the problem only helping that portion of the population that support their political objectives. Go to the OMB web page and look at the Bush projections. HIS projections, not the liberals, show a total national debt by the end of his second term of 9.94 Trillion. Look at his budget projections that show annual deficit as far as the eye can see. Look at Table S-10 for the Budget and table S-14 for the debt.

sandy2

on Feb 11, 2005

The biggest expenses are social security, medicare and defense. These account for something like 5/8 or the spending. Now also, Bush's tax cut lost more than a trillion dollars for the federal government over the last 4 years. So I don't want to see any republicans pointing fingers, except at themselves.

shadesofgrey

on Feb 11, 2005

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?

I couldn't find that number.

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, why do you assume that whoman doesn't pay a lot in taxes? I just finished my taxes and will pay more than $15,000 for federal taxes alone--that clearly covers me and nearly another person in Gideon's $8,500 estimate. I think that is ample evidence that I put my money where my mouth is!

drmiler

on Feb 11, 2005

Shades, you need to work on your reading. No where in drguy's post does he even suggest that whoman does not pay an exhorbitant amount of taxes. He statement was that whoman could pay more if he wished. And the second part was NOT directed to you either.

whoman69

on Feb 12, 2005

I can give you 425 billion reasons from last year alone to show that they don't.

Putting my money where my mouth is means I should refuse my refund. What an idiotic statement. I could not make even a significant dent in the deficit, but those making over $200K should pay less according to you. They actually could make a dent if the deficit.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 12, 2005

So I don't want to see any republicans pointing fingers, except at themselves.

The only problem I have with this statement, sandy, is that I feel blame lies EQUALLY among the Dems and Republicans

COL Gene

on Feb 14, 2005

The fact that the Republicans control Congress and the White House place the blame on the Republicans. The pork, the tax cuts, trade policies are all because of what the Republicans want. The Iraq War was the result of both parties but the Republicans made the arguements and twisted the Intel.

shadesofgrey

on Feb 14, 2005

drmiler--my reading comprehension is just find, thank you. Dr. Guy's "put your money where you mouth is" suggested that he didn't believe that whoman was financially invested enough to have a valid opinion. I did make a leap in thinking that the reason Dr. Guy didn't think whoman was financially invested enough was because whoman is a liberal.

There is a reoccuring theme around here that liberals are leaches who suck the system dry and offer little--I was simply arguing that it was not the case.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 14, 2005

The Iraq War was the result of both parties but the Republicans made the arguements and twisted the Intel.

Twisted the intel? Col Gene, are you going to sit there and lie through your teeth at us? You know full well that neither Congress, the UN, nor anyone else in government is stuck with relying solely on the White House for intel. We rarely agree, but I figured that at least you could make your points without lying.

That sir, is beneath you... or at least should be.

COL Gene

on Feb 14, 2005

Bush had choosen to attack Iraq before 9/11. There were many who warned Bush not to get us into a war in Iraq including his own father. He is the one that told us about the mushroom cloud when the intelligence clearly showed Saddam Hussein did not have an active nuclear weapons program. Bush, Cheney and Powell went before the world telling them that we were in danger from this evil dictator Saddam Hussein which simply was not borne out by the facts. It was Bush who ignored the warnings of August prior to 9/11 that indicated bin Laden intended to attack the United States.

Bush twisted the data and the arguments to make it appear as if Iraq was linked to 9/11 and was a real danger to the United States. These issues were lies. The United States had no business taking upon itself the responsibility to enforce UN resolutions, remove evil dictators, spread democracy, or anything like it. We have created an atmosphere in the Muslim world whereby we are now the evil ones. Why George W. Bush chose to attack Iraq will probably never know with certainty. But it was not because we were in danger from Iraq and therefore there is simply no justification to put at risk American lives and to expand hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

drmiler

on Feb 14, 2005

and twisted the Intel.

So according to you the republicans twisted intel for the whole world? What utter BS. It documented fact that *every* intel agency in the world said the same thing.

COL Gene

on Feb 14, 2005

drmiler

No, that is why most other nations did not agree with Bush. Even the people in the countries who's leaders supported Bush did not agree with Bush or their leaders. We went in on this on alone (except for the British government) and are paying the price in troops killed, injured and in the financial cost. Today Bush asked for another $80 Billion which will bring the cost to 300 billion. I hope you think that is money and lives well spent. I DO NOT!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!