Liberal free for all coming to an end

[randolph]

Originally Posted by randolph

I apologize. The post I read was wrong and I should have checked it out.

Actually, I should have pointed out that the plus fifty percent applied to discretionary spending not the total budget.
The point is that the military spending is discretionary so if we seriously want to get out of this budget hole, we need to cut military spending. Our Congress is not willing to do that. Are they hostages to the military industrial complex? Eisenhower would be shocked and appalled.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Actually, I should have pointed out that the plus fifty percent applied to discretionary spending not the total budget.
The point is that the military spending is discretionary so if we seriously want to get out of this budget hole, we need to cut military spending. Our Congress is not willing to do that. Are they hostages to the military industrial complex? Eisenhower would be shocked and appalled.

I'm not sure where your source came from (it doesn't even have a year on it, or even a country for that matter lol), and to tell the truth, I'm not sure where my pie chart came from. So I went to the horses mouth here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/winning-th...ractive-budget

Since it's not in a convenient pie chart I made my own (you can check the numbers if you like, I didn't fudge anything. Just mouse over the categories and see the numbers there). And then I made another one lumping all the welfare programs into one category.

You say, or your source says, that defense is discretionary. I would argue that maybe some of it is discretionary, but for a large country, full of resources like the US, it's mandatory.

Defense is 19.27% and welfare programs are a whopping 60.84% of the budget. Some can certainly be cut from defense... when we're not at war, but 60% for welfare programs for a country with as many opportunities as US has is quite excessive. I am certainly not saying welfare should be cut entirely, but a number that high is screaming for scrutiny to see where cuts can be made.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... You say, or your source says, that defense is discretionary. I would argue that maybe some of it is discretionary, but for a large country, full of resources like the US, it's mandatory.

The term "discretionary spending" has a very specific meaning in economics and in government fiscal policy, whether in this country or anywhere else. It refers to spending about which the spender can make choices. Hence, it is optional, not mandatory -- no matter how important any one individual may think it is.

That is why you never hear any mention of defense spending in the specific discussion of "mandates." Mandatory spending in this context includes the so-called "entitlement programs" and spending that is specifically required by law (e.g., a federal requirement that a state spend on a particular thing or program).

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Defense is 19.27% and welfare programs are a whopping 60.84% of the budget. Some can certainly be cut from defense... when we're not at war, but 60% for welfare programs for a country with as many opportunities as US has is quite excessive. I am certainly not saying welfare should be cut entirely, but a number that high is screaming for scrutiny to see where cuts can be made.

How about corporate welfare? It doesn't show up as an entitlement program in the budget, but is hidden in hundreds of places via tax loopholes and subsidies given to the corporations by the politicians they've bought. Are you for cutting every single penny of that? If not, can you justify the expenditure of a single penny of corporate welfare?

[randolph]

OK this is from: National Priorities.org
The Federal Budget can be divided into two types of spending according to how Congress appropriates the money: discretionary and mandatory. Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget which goes through the annual appropriations process each year. Total Budget: $3.64 trillion Mandatory: $2.1 trillion Discretionary: $1.2 trillion Interest on Debt $247 billion Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2011. In other words, Congress directly sets the level of spending on programs which are discretionary. Congress can choose to increase or decrease spending on any of those programs in a given year.
The discretionary budget is about one-third of total federal spending. The chart below indicates how discretionary spending was divided up in fiscal year 2011.
58 percent of the discretionary budget in FY 2011 is "national defense," a government-defined function area that roughly corresponds in common parlance as "military." However, this category does not include foreign military financing, security assistance, and other programs commonly thought of as military. Other types of discretionary spending include the budget for education, many health programs, and housing assistance.
In January 2010, President Obama announced that he would freeze spending on domestic discretionary spending for three years, with annual increases no greater than inflation after that in an effort to cut the budget deficit. The freeze did not include security-related spending for the Pentagon, foreign aid, veterans and homeland security. The proposed cuts will generate an estimated $250 billion in savings over ten years.
In reality, the proposed "freeze" is actually a cut. The proposal caps non-security spending at $447 billion for each of the next three fiscal years. During that time, inflation will erode the purchasing power of that total, potentially requiring additional cuts in services in each successive year.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget which goes through the annual appropriations process each year.

Ok, if that's the definition, then that's the definition. Still, suppose we have Obama and a democrat congress for another 4 years after 2012 and our debt has gone up another $8 trillion or so. The dollar collapses and our economy is sent into a serious tailspin. The government goes into emergency budget cutting mode. Entire departments are now being cut. I guarantee you we will still have a military, because we must have a military. But anyways, on with the technical definitions...

Originally Posted by randolph

In January 2010, President Obama announced that he would freeze spending on domestic discretionary spending for three years, with annual increases no greater than inflation after that in an effort to cut the budget deficit. The freeze did not include security-related spending for the Pentagon, foreign aid, veterans and homeland security. The proposed cuts will generate an estimated $250 billion in savings over ten years.

Yeah, after he raises the deficit several $trillion, THEN let's freeze it lol. And that's only if you believe him. As I said above, in his first budget in 2009 he called for "A New Era of Responsibility". At least he has a sense of humor right? He promised to cut the deficit to $912 billion by 2011 and to $581 billion by 2012. The reality is twice that size.

Originally Posted by randolph

In reality, the proposed "freeze" is actually a cut. The proposal caps non-security spending at $447 billion for each of the next three fiscal years. During that time, inflation will erode the purchasing power of that total, potentially requiring additional cuts in services in each successive year.

Sorry, but that does not fulfill BO's promise and frankly after raising the debt $5 trillion in the last 5 years, cutting the debt $1.3 trillion in 3 years is not adequate. What the republicans are proposing isn't even adequate. Our government needs to get serious about ELIMINATING the fucking debt! If we have to borrow to maintain our lifestyle, then something is wrong and that is unsustainable. We need to stop spending 60% of our budget on welfare and focus instead on reviving our economy and putting people back to work so this country can start producing again. THAT is how we afford our lifestyle.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... We need to stop spending 60% of our budget on welfare and focus instead on reviving our economy and putting people back to work so this country can start producing again. THAT is how we afford our lifestyle.

Nice dodge, Tracy. Bring up the welfare issue again but don't answer the question about corporate welfare.

[TracyCoxx]

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda.

The good news is shutting down the government will save a lot of $$. The bad news is BO will get credit for slashing the deficit and will be known as a frugal president... like what happened with Clinton.