How To Tell Who's Serious About Reducing the Federal Deficit

Where did cutting out over $4-$6 trillion in Tarp programs, bailouts to everyone, failed stimulus packages, and a health care bill that will add almost $2 trillion to the deficit and even double that if they don't break the 10th amendment and FORCE people to buy a good or pruduct against their will, go? That is over 1/3 of our entire deficit!

Apparently you have to be a scholar or a rogue to understand the answer to that question Viking. Liberals are in the midst of re-defining themselves again, so we have to wait to find out who they are.

Neither the dems or the repubs are serious about reducing the deficit. They only thing they are concerened about is being elected and cutting spending will always alienate some group of voters somewhere.

Well the Dems throwing out a 2000 page spending bill today that is $1.1 trillion and they are saying it has to be passed by Saturday or the government shuts down, really shows they don't give a crap!

Science Chic wrote: Thoughts?

It suffers from a failed premise. The problem with the deficit isn't the amount of tax being collected since that is within the historical parameters that the general government has traditionally received. The problem is entirely contained within the amount of spending that the general government has authorized.

We really can't grow our economy sufficient to support this level of spending. We really shouldn't be expected to have more of the fruits of our individual labor confiscated to sustain the federal spending aimed at the individual welfare of those whom we have never met in states removed from our own.

The source of the problem is that the people of this nation have been taught that they are primarily citizens of the nation instead of primarily citizens of the state in which they live and also citizens of the union of those states. The general government was established to protect the liberty and sovereignty of the several states that belonged to the union and to make sure that they didn't fight amongst themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

And while true that the spending for the programs and departments mentioned must take place, the reality is that so long as the general government is attempting to exceed its original mission it will also, as a consequence, unnecessarily deplete the resources of the individuals that reside in it via excessive taxation; inadequately address its primary areas of responsibility in favor of those it has chosen for itself and continue the efforts to get out of the deficit cycle by digging the existing hole ever deeper.

The only long term solution is to return to a state where the federal government is properly chained to its intended purposes and ending all efforts to address the individual welfare of the people living with the union of the states. Sans the current social welfare drain on the budget, there is plenty of revenue to continue the primary purpose for which the general government was established, pay the interest on the existing debt and to start to retire the principle amount of that debt. When the general government was established, it was stated by Thomas Jefferson that the government should never incur a debt it could not retire within 19 years.

I would be agreeable to an increased level of taxation specifically to address the capital amount of the existing debt, but not to one that expanded, or even continued, the ability of the general government to spend money as, and on whatever, it pleases and only with the understanding that the "mandatory" spending items that are solely the creation of the federal government to address the individual welfare of the person would be dismantled and discontinued and would thus leave the interest on the existing debt as the sole remaining "mandatory" spending item.

The individual welfare of the citizens of New York, Florida, Texas, West Virginia, Kansas, California, Washington or any other state is properly the responsibility of that sovereign state's government, not the general government of the union of the states. Those states that wish to provide, via taxation, for the welfare of the individual person, as Massachusetts has done with health care, are certainly free to do so if that is the desire of the citizens that live within it. If they wish to offer any social safety nets to their citizens, they can certainly decide to do so, but the general government safety nets have become, and will continue to be for as long as they continue to exist, not safety nets, but hammocks.

Total tax receipts, less the taxes paid for the privilege of being employed or having employees (the so called withholding taxes for Social Security and Medicare) totaled $1.42 Trillion in 2010. Discretionary spending items, including the Dept of Education, HUD, HHS, and a few others that I personally have issues with, was roughly $200 Billion below that amount. Interest on the existing national debt was something close to $165 Billion, leaving about $35 Billion. We can certainly trim the fat and come up with additional savings in the discretionary budget items, and ending our military involvement not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in other nations such as Great Britain, Germany, Japan and elsewhere will subtract even more. We have taxation sufficient for the intended purposes of the general government without raising it beyond the current burden. We can even pay down the principle amount of the current debt with the existing tax burden if we return our general government to its original mission and keep it chained there.

The problem isn't insufficient taxation, it's excessive, massively excessive, spending.

And now SC, just one question for you. Do you think I am serious about reducing the deficit incurred by the general government?

No one will do much to reduce the debt, too many sacred cows who vote out there.
Seniors, can't reduce SS or raise the eligibility age.
Military, you want to deny funds to the troops or close local military bases.
Afghanistan, want to be the politician who gave them back to the Taliban?
Want to be a one term president like George Bush I, sign in tax increases.

The Viking wrote: Well the Dems throwing out a 2000 page spending bill today that is $1.1 trillion and they are saying it has to be passed by Saturday or the government shuts down, really shows they don't give a crap!

Let it shut down for the rest of the year. If the Congress couldn't, or wouldn't, pass a budget prior to the start of the new fiscal year, or even prior to elections last month, then it really can't be all that important to get it done before the official end of the 111th Congress, can it?

Science Chic wrote: I never doubted that you were PS, you've been an outspoken proponent of drastically reduced spending. I am confused as to why you thought the article wasn't about that though as 4 of the 5 points was about cutting spending.

4 of the 5 were about cutting SS, Defence, and Healthcare. But yet none ot if it about the real waste over the last 4 years of Tarp 1,2 and 4, bank, auto, and wall street bailouts, the failed stiumus, the cach for clunkers, and now an unpaid for Healthcare bill that will total $2-4 trillion dollars!

The person writing this article is by far anti war and anti military.