« "So shallow, so hyperpartisan, and so intellectually dishonest" | Main | The Path to Unsustainability »

A Modest Correction to the 2012 Budget


After all the noise, it occurs to me that we have not heard enough serious discussion about what needs to be cut and how the budget needs to be reduced.  This is the reason President Obama has no credibility on the budget, by the way - he offers no serious effort to address the deficit crisis, an indictment made worse by the fact that his first two budgets made the problem far worse than any President before him has ever done.  But President Obama is not the focus,; we must address the simple but difficult problem of finding a way to put our morbidly obese government on a diet.  This article begins a discussion on how we should do that.

 

I start with Obama's proposed budget from February of this year, which is to date the only detailed look at how he wants to spend the tax money (and, unfortunately, revenue which does not exist).

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/budget_2012.pdf

 

I also submit that we must presume that Congress gets serious about spending only the money they actually have.  Also, the structure of my proposed budget starts from a simple hierarchy of projects and departments:

 

I.                    Critical Needs

II.                  Important Needs

III.                Unavoidable Costs

IV.                Useful but discretionary

V.                  Waste

 

Let's be clear - we are in crisis, which means we have to make deep cuts to avoid serious problems down the road.  Let's also be clear, that spending is the problem, not revenue.  Historic review shows that Americans are paying as much or more as they always have; tax cuts solved a problem of over-taxing.  We need to use a chainsaw on spending, not a penknife.

 

Obama's proposed budget sets aside spending for 24 departments, agencies, and major programs.  They are, by name, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security,  Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State  and International Programs,  Transportation, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, the Corporation for National and Community Service, Corps of Engineers, National Intelligence, National Science Foundation, and Overseas Contingency Operations programs.  They may be classified by priority and constitutionality as follows:

 

I.                     Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, State, Treasury, National Intelligence   

II.                  Commerce, Energy, NASA

III.                Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Social Security Adm., Corps of Engineers

IV.                Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, EPA

V.                  Dept. of Education, HUD, Small Business Administration, Corp. for National and Community Service, National Science Foundation, Overseas Contingency Operations

 

Let's keep it simple for starters:  Category I gets its budget, pretty much untouched although we should always look for fat or ways to avoid unnecessary costs.  Category II gets  a 20% budget cut, Category III gets between 40 and 75% cut, Category IV gets 80% cut, and Category V gets defunded.   This is in regards to discretionary budgets.

 

Obviously, this would be controversial, and certain specific programs or needs will have to be examined, and at need re-funded to minimal levels to meet requirements.  Any effective plan  must make a hard revision of basic assumptions.  Before going on, though, let's see what that does for the budget to make these cuts:

 

Department of Agriculture:  $23.9 B original discretionary, $12.0 B revised

Department of Commerce: $8.8 B original discretionary, $7.04 B revised

Department of Defense: $553 B base budget, unchanged

National Intelligence Program: classified in budget, $55 B revised

Department of Education:$77.4 B original budget, defunded in revised

Department of Energy: $29.5 B original budget, $23.6 B revised

Department of Health and Human Services: $79.9 B original budget, $15.98 B revised

Department of Homeland Security: $43.2 B original; budget, unchanged

Department of Housing and Urban Development: $48 B original budget, defunded in revised

Department of the Interior: $12 B original budget, $6 B revised

Department of Justice: $28.2 B original budget, unchanged

Department of Labor: $12.8 B original budget, $6.4 B revised

Department of State and Other International Programs: $47 B original budget, unchanged

Department of Transportation: $13.4 B original discretionary, $6.7 B revised

Department of the Treasury: $14 B original budget, unchanged

Department of Veterans Affairs: $61.85 B original budget, $12.37 B revised

Overseas Contingency Operations: $116 B original budget, defunded and rolled back into Defense and State in revision

Corps of Engineers--Civil Works: $4.6 B original budget, $2.3 B revised

Environmental Protection Agency: $9 B in original budget, $1.8 B revised

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: $18.7 B original budget, $14.96 B revised

National Science Foundation: $7.8 B in original budget, defunded in revision

Small Business Administration: $0.985 B in original budget, defunded in revision

Social Security Administration: $12.5 B original discretionary, $6.25 B in revision

Corporation for National and Community Service: $1.3 B in original budget, defunded in revision

 

Totals:  $1,278,835,000,000 Obama Budget , $858,811,000,00 revised  ($420 Billion savings)

Discretionary Spending ONLY

 

Are these cuts painful?  Obviously.  Are they necessary?  Actually, we need to cut deeper, but this would be a start.  My point is twofold.  First, government simply has to get away from thinking it can do everything it wants with our money.  And second, so far no one in Congress, in either party, is really serious enough about what is needed.    


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41428.

Comments (73)

Mr. Drummond,Thank... (Below threshold)
SER:

Mr. Drummond,

Thank you for "zero'ing out" the Dept. of Education. Has K-12 education improved or deteriorated since it was created in the late 1970's?

Barry isn't worried about a... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Barry isn't worried about a 'budget'. Barry is all about 'income redistribution' and 'making life fair'.

Unfortunately, he's got a low IQ base of support, the vast majority paying NO income tax at all. Nice. All the benefits, none of the fiscal responsibility.

"Has K-12 education improve... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Has K-12 education improved or deteriorated since it was created in the late 1970's?"

FYI, Dept of Health, Education and Welfare has been around one hell of a lot longer than 'the late 1970's'.

And education has DETERIORATED in case you haven't noticed.

Either the deficit is a cri... (Below threshold)

Either the deficit is a crisis or it isn't. If it is, then he wealthiest can also certainly stand to return to the tax rates they had under Clinton.

So since returning the tax rates for the wealthy to where they were under Clinton would do FAR more to fix the deficit than any budget cuts yet proposed - I don't see how that makes Obama less serious towards the deficit.

Oh for the sake of Pete.</p... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Oh for the sake of Pete.

Jimx, ok, we tax the wealthy and what if that doesn't fix the crisis; then what? Please, let us know how it plays out in your mind.

Hey jimmy. Take the top 40... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Hey jimmy. Take the top 400 on the Forbes list of the 'wealthiest'. Seize every damned dime they have.

It won't pay for a full year of your Obamassiah's government.

Next question. Who you going to rape the following year?

Chip, we can cut the budget... (Below threshold)

Chip, we can cut the budget AND put the taxes back to where they were under Clinton. It's not an either/or.

It's just continually interesting to me how the deficit is a nation-threatening Crisis!!!!!!!!!11!!!eleventy!!1!!, if we're talking about programs that benefit the poor and middle class. But if those who can afford it might have to pay the same rates they did under Clinton? Then somehow it's suddenly just not that big a deal.

Hey Garandfanny - why in he... (Below threshold)

Hey Garandfanny - why in heaven would I do that? No need to do something that extreme.

Like I said, all we have to do is put the tax rates for individuals who make over $250,000'yr back to where it was were under Clinton.

If you don't think this will help the deficit at all, please explain why.

In the first category, ther... (Below threshold)
Stan:

In the first category, there is one department that can go — Department of Homeland Security. That has been a boondoggle from day one, especially the Transportation Security Administration. You know, the one that gets their jollies by feeling up six year girls and leaves alone the most likely people that would commit terrorism to pass freely.

Jimx, hmm, first I... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Jimx,

hmm, first I've heard you say that we could cut the budget, you are usually the first one on the tax more bandwagon and you continually hammer on that point.

You ever hear of tax shelters, The rich always find ways to hide their money from the government, that's why they are rich, they hire people smart enough to move the money around, and if they can't move it around within the US they move it out of the US.

Historically when tax rates go up tax revenue goes down, hmmm wonder why that is? Not only that, when business are taxed too much they usually freeze hiring or move their business elsewhere.

I'm not against taxes, they are a necessary evil, but raising them every time the say boo, is not the end all cure all. Besides taxes would have to go considerably higher than the Clinton era to even begin to help with the current situation, and I don't think that would be wise.

"If you don't think this wi... (Below threshold)
Chip:

"If you don't think this will help the deficit at all, please explain why."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/12/news/economy/national_debt_taxes_obama/index.htm

First, the income of the top 2% of taxpayers is typically more volatile than that of taxpayers lower down the income scale, so when the economy sours, so often do those high-end income streams. That means less revenue than expected will flow into federal coffers.

Second, even if that weren't true, there just aren't enough rich people to generate the kind of revenue needed to substantially reduce deficits.

"Like I said, all we have t... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Like I said, all we have to do is put the tax rates for individuals who make over $250,000'yr back to where it was were under Clinton."

If seizing ALL their money won't fund Barry's SPENDING SPREE for one year, what exactly will increasing their current taxes 5% accomplish?

Barry's first budget proposal for 2012 was OVER $3 TRILLION. $1.3 TRILLION was DEFICIT.

When the Bush cuts were made in the aftermath of 9/11 - tax revenue INCREASED. Here in California it led to a budget surplus of $40 BILLION.

And the fucking liberals found ways to create programs to spend it. Only problem was the money didn't last and they can't paper over a $26 BILLION deficit.

Oh wait! They can! Moonbeam wants to RAISE taxes "temporarily" for 5 years!

Jim X. "Taxing the rich" as... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim X. "Taxing the rich" as you liberals love to use devisive terminology will lower the deficit but the economy would go further in the tank. Do you actually think putting more money in the governments hands instead of the economy will fix anything? Are you that naive? ww

Nice list DJ. Agree that DO... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Nice list DJ. Agree that DOE has got to go.
I'd also defund the Dept of Energy, created by the last worst president, Carter, as a means of distracting from his disastrous energy policies (or lack thereof).

As to the Clinton tax rates, hell ya, lets do it and while we're at it, let's bring back the dot com boom.

jimmy x,L... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

jimmy x,

Like I said, all we have to do is put the tax rates for individuals who make over $250,000'yr back to where it was were under Clinton.

If you don't think this will help the deficit at all, please explain why.

The internet is a wonderful thing. So many websites out there with useful information, including some of the government sites. If you look through the IRS's site, you'll find information on taxable incomes. So lets look at the rich, i think Obama has used 250,000/year as rich, other people have used different numbers. Lets use 100,000/year. If you take the TOTAL taxable income for everyone who makes 100,000/year or more, their total taxable income is only $1.582 billion.

Since the deficit for this year alone is over $1.6 billion, if you raised the tax rate on everyone who earns over $100,000/year to 100% and simply confiscate all the money they earn, you don't even balance the budget this year!

Face it, there just isn't enough money in the world to pay for all the spending you liberals want to do.

for your education: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/eat-the-rich/237000/

Jim XThe total rev... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

The total revenue to the federal govt for 2010 from private income taxes was $1.4 trillion. If you doubled the amount EVERY INDIVIDUAL paid in 2010 and gave it to the govt it still wouldnt pay for the deficit for this year.

It is obvious that taxes being too low is NOT the problem.

SPENDING TOO MUCH IS OBVIOUSLY THE PROBLEM.

Govt has proved time and time again that they will spend every damn cent they can get their hands on and then borrow more.

I asked you before and I ask you again.

WHen was the last year that the budget was balanced without counting Social security as part of the budget? (You know that social security that is supposed to be sitting in a trust fund and be there when we retire but is nothing but a bunch of "I hope I can pay you when the time comes".

WHEN???

If Congress could actually spend less than it takes in than I might now have as much of a problem with raising taxes as I do.

In addition, it has been proven that dollars in the PRIVATE HANDS generate more GDP via the multiplier effect that dollars in GOVT hands. You and every other liberal repeatedly ignore these facts.


Garandfan: "what exactly... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Garandfan: "what exactly will increasing their current taxes 5% accomplish?"

Actually it's 3% Garandfan.

Jim X: "Like I said, all we have to do is put the tax rates for individuals who make over $250,000'yr back to where it was were under Clinton.

Jim X, you say that's "all we have to do". Really? It was recently calculated that if everyone making over $100K was taxed at 100% it would amount to about $1.3 trillion, which is $200 Billion less that this years current deficit.

Don't you think your statement the "all we have to do" is raise taxes 3% on those making over $250K is, well, to be blunt, totally ignorant.

And never mind that when you raise taxes on the "rich" they create less jobs and the really rich find lots and lots of ways to shelter thier incomes from taxes.

I know no matter how many times you're reminded of the simple fact that increasing tax rates decreases tax revenues, you're going to pretend that human nature does not exist and everyone will behave the way the Marxists want them to. However even Obama once admitted that he knows that increasing taxes will reduce tax revenues, but then he said he didn't care he would do it anyway.

DJ, are you SURE you want t... (Below threshold)

DJ, are you SURE you want to put the VA in Category IV?

Objectively speaking, you're right. But there's an intangible here -- a national debt of honor we owe our vets.

And here's another intangible -- how will current active military feel about that kind of treatment given to their brothers and sisters in arms?

I've always seen that sort of thing as a quid pro quo -- they give their service, we live up to our promise to them. Morally speaking, cutting the VA by 80% simply is not an option.

J.

I agree with Jay Tea -- the... (Below threshold)
Burton Choinski:

I agree with Jay Tea -- the VA stuff is almost a side cost of a constitutionally mandated job for the government, that of National Defense.

Jim X -Yes, taxing... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Jim X -

Yes, taxing the rich would help.

No, it wouldn't help enough. Anywhere near enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

And what about next year? Wash, rinse, repeat the looting until the economy improves and government lowers spending?

We simply spend too much. We've promised so much to so many, and there's no way to deliver.

Actually Jay, I do think th... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Actually Jay, I do think that's necessary. Bear in mind, doing away with the Dept of Veteran Affairs does not mean we stop caring for our vets. I'd think it right to roll VA into the Dept of Defense, and fund its services as part of our defense budget. You'd have consolidation savings, eliminate some bureacracy, and maybe we'd show better respect to our vets than the half-assed gestures they get from the current politicians. I expect a Vietnam vet backed by the full authority of our serving forces would send an appropriate message.

That's part of the whole thing, really. Ever notice how we keep ADDING new programs and departments. 'Overseas Contingency'? Why would any idiot SEPARATE that from defense? Why would Transportation be separate from Commerce? Why is the Dept of Energy separate from the Interior? There's a LOT to be cut from Admin and savings in consolidating the org chart without hurting performance one bit.

GarandFan,"And edu... (Below threshold)
SER:

GarandFan,

"And education has DETERIORATED in case you haven't noticed."

I had. That was my point. Carter paid off the teachers union after his election by creating the Dept of Education out of HEW. Not sure of the reason for your response.

Here is a more realistic, I... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Here is a more realistic, IMHO, version of DJ's list:

I. Critical Needs : Defense, Justice, Treasury, National Intelligence

II. Important Needs: State, Transportation, Corps of Engineers, Veterans Affairs, about 20% of Homeland Security

III. Unavoidable Costs: Social Security Adm., about 10% of Interior, about 20% of Overseas Contingency Operations

IV. Useful but discretionary: about 10% of EPA, NASA

V. Waste: about 80% of Homeland Security, Dept. of Education, HUD, Small Business Administration, Corp. for National and Community Service, National Science Foundation, 80 % of Overseas Contingency Operations, Health and Human Services, about 90% of EPA, Agriculture, about 90% of Interior, Labor

So since returning the t... (Below threshold)
Evil Otto:

So since returning the tax rates for the wealthy to where they were under Clinton would do FAR more to fix the deficit than any budget cuts yet proposed - I don't see how that makes Obama less serious towards the deficit.

This idiot fantasy that Jim X engages in, that if we bring back Clinton-era tax rates and that'll help fix the problem, fails to account for the fact that the federal government has grown far, far larger than it was under Clinton. The budget for 1997 was a roughly $1.7 trillion, which in today's dollars would be approximately $2.2 trillion. The federal budget for 2010 was $3.6 trillion, with a deficit that is nearly 3/4 the size of the entire damned federal budget in 1996 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Jim, buddy, how do I put this politely... read a frikkin' economics book. The only way your idea works is if we ALSO shrink the size of the federal government to Clinton-era levels. Are you game for that?

Actually our first Cabinet ... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Actually our first Cabinet (George Washington's) had only 4 departments: State, Treasury, Justice, & Defense (War).

If we went back to just that, we'd be fine.

Evil Otto: "The only wa... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Evil Otto: "The only way your idea works is if we ALSO shrink the size of the federal government to Clinton-era levels."

For Jim's idea to work you not only have to shrink Government to Clinton-era levels, you have to use Clinton-era tricky math like they did back then to create the illusion of a balance budget.

But you have to forgive Jim X. He's just not a big picture sort of guy.

You know what, PBunyan... i... (Below threshold)
Evil Otto:

You know what, PBunyan... if we could shrink the government to 1996, I'd forgive any tricky math they wanted to use. Oh, I know there really wasn't a surplus, but I would be happy if we only had a measly hundred-billion-or-so deficit.

Historically when tax ra... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Historically when tax rates go up tax revenue goes down

False. FDR raised revenues. So did GHWB and Clinton. Reagan raised revenues by raising taxes.

Your statement is not correct.

GarandFan: George W. Bush Jr. increased spending by a wide margin, on a curve well ahead of any increases in revenue. But nobody cared about the deficit when it was leveraged to buy seniors' votes.

I don't think Jim X suggests that raising tax rates to Clintonian levels will close the budget gap; however, the most important thing in that regard is to expand the tax base by lowering unemployment--and in order to do that, social services need to be maintained to at least their current levels to drive unemployment to 5-6%. The expanded tax base (and smaller welfare/social assistance rolls) will add long-term revenue. To get to that point, somebody has to pay for food stamps and education (incl. things like Pell grants); but in the short term, the simplest way to expand the tax base is to invest in infrastructure upgrades. Your country is literally falling apart and it doesn't seem as though the Captains of Industry are going to step in and start replacing highways and bridges and public transit systems on their own dime.

Hyper, I think for a change... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Hyper, I think for a change I'll ignore the lies, hyperbole, distortions, and Marxist logic in your post and instead just point out that while our infrastructure is far, far from "literally falling apart" it is a hell of lot easier for you Canadians to maintain your infrastructure when you only have one road.

Hyper:Rea... (Below threshold)
Stan:

Hyper:

Reagan raised revenues by raising taxes.

What box of Cracker Jacks did that statement come from? Reagan reduced taxes over the objections of a Democrat controlled Congress. Look at what that did. It caused a major economic boom that was the envy of the world. Of course libs like yourself, Hyper could not stand the prosperity and tried everything that you could think of to ruin it.

hyper wrote:<blockquo... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

hyper wrote:

FDR raised revenues. So did GHWB and Clinton. Reagan raised revenues by raising taxes.

I'd like to see where you get this information. When Reagan took office, the top marginal tax rate was 70% and revenue was 600 Billion. When he left, the top rate was 28% and revenue was 991 Billion.

The top marginal tax rate under Clinton actually decreased from 39.6% to 39.1%.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

You are correct, however, that rates and revenue both went up under Bush 41, but the rate only climbed 3%, so it's not much of a valid comparison.

At the risk of taking a kno... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

At the risk of taking a known liar and troll seriously, I should point out the more glaring of his most recent false statements:

"the most important thing in that regard is to expand the tax base by lowering unemployment--and in order to do that, social services need to be maintained to at least their current levels to drive unemployment to 5-6%."

While it is true that to expand the tax base, unemployment has to be lowered, the method by which that is accomplished is in no way caused to social services. Businesses hire employees when - and only when - they have a combination of a favorable economic climate and genuine growth opportunity. New laws to regulate business and tax the hell out of them are poison to growth, and those 'social services' are parasites to opportunity.

"somebody has to pay for food stamps and education (incl. things like Pell grants); but in the short term, the simplest way to expand the tax base is to invest in infrastructure upgrades."

Welfare is not 'infrastructure upgrades', it's absurd to pretend so. The entire contention that spending public money will produce jobs is a lie, and cannot be called anything else.

"Your country is literally falling apart"

Only the parts which have been run by Liberals for a generation or more. And I've seen parts of Canada that are as bad as any part of New York or California, so that implied lie is just laughable.

"and it doesn't seem as though the Captains of Industry are going to step in and start replacing highways and bridges and public transit systems on their own dime."

... annnnnnnnnnd Captain Idiocy ends his word-flatulence with a statement that proves he knows nothing of history. Rich people never contribute to the public good? I guess all those libraries founded by Carnegie never happened, or the scholarships set up by the Hershey family and the Morgan donations to medical research, or Bill Gates' billions of dollars to charity? When Sandra Bullock donated a million dollars to help Japan, that was fake I guess. When the CEOs of Curves, Diane and Kevin Heavin donated $410k to three non-profits in Houston, that was not real, huh?

Lying jerk. He can't even throw out a lie that makes it past the first serious fact-check.

Hyper ignores total facts t... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper ignores total facts the way his coworkers ignore him.

Yet again.

In 2010 income tax revenue to the US govt was $1.4 trillion. If you double the amount of taxes people paid to the govt you will still not close the deficit for this year.

Dollars in private hands have a greater multiplier effect on the economy and GDP than dollars in govt hands (this has been proved consistently time and gain the past 2 years thanks to Obama).

reagon cut taxes. Govt revenue went up.
GW Bush cut taxes. Govt revenue went up.
Hell even Kennedy cut taxes to raise revenue.


Hyper you have a right to express your opinion. You have no right to make people believe you and you have absolutely no right to facts. Try not to ignore them (I know it is hard for a liberal)..

Hyper is Whoops dumb uncle.... (Below threshold)
914:

Hyper is Whoops dumb uncle.

Jim X, you say tha... (Below threshold)
Jim X, you say that's "all we have to do". Really? It was recently calculated that if everyone making over $100K was taxed at 100% it would amount to about $1.3 trillion, which is $200 Billion less that this years current deficit.

I wasn't aware I had to put this much context to it, but okay.

All we have to do, in order to save FAR MORE MONEY THAN THIS BUDGET DOES FOR THIS YEAR, is put taxes on the wealthy back to where they were under Clinton.

Is what I'm saying clearer now?

Jim X. "Taxing the... (Below threshold)
Jim X. "Taxing the rich" as you liberals love to use devisive terminology will lower the deficit but the economy would go further in the tank.

Except that's the exact opposite of what happens if the extra money that comes in is invested in programs that produce short and long-term benefits for the poor and middle class. Because they spend all the money they get because they need to, you see.

Jim,Re36Do ... (Below threshold)
Hcddbz:

Jim,
Re36

Do you really believe that? So creating a totallly dependent class of citizens helps the economy in what why? We want them to work get private sector jobs and contribute to society. In fact if they work and save money and invest that would be better.
Lower the tax rate for business to 20% for individual to 15%. Tax companies only once not in the USA and other Countries. This would bring companies here and with a stable tax code companies can make long term plans.

This would increase private sector jobs, grow the tax base and increase revenue. At the sametime cut spending and consolidate goverment agencies.

Remember Social security and Medicare are per employee both sides of the contribution. So you want more workers in private sector.

You also want a real energy policy and strong dollar to contol food and fuel cost. This leaves more money in people pockets at the end of the day.

Substance living is not a good thing.

Jim X" if the extr... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

" if the extra money that comes in is invested in programs that produce short and long-term benefits for the poor and middle class"

really and what do the rich do with it? Stuff it in their mattresses!!!!

And Jim You still havent told me the last time that congress has shown that it can not spend more money than it takes in. I have only asked you like 5 times already. Your nonanswer tells volumes.

You keep saying give the money to congress and maybe they will spend it where it needs to be spent yet you offer exactly ZERO PROOF that that is what will happen.

Look at the stimulus money that would keep unemployment down to under 8%. Bail out Obama's friends, pay off political allies and the unions.

Hcddbz, re: 37 -Th... (Below threshold)

Hcddbz, re: 37 -

There are a lot of disconnects in that statement.

First, how does investing in the poor and middle class create "a totally dependent class of citizens"? Does investing in companies create a "totally dependent class of companies"?

I'm talking about putting money in, in a long-term fashion, so that citizens learn more, work smarter and harder, and make more for themselves and for the country.

Second, the current tax rate for many large companies isn't 20%. It's actually **negative** - we taxpayers PAY THEM. And they still outsource overseas. So, not seeing how giving them even more taxpayer money benefits anyone besides them.

Third, I do remember and am aware that social security and medicare are per employee on both sides. What you are not aware of is that investment in programs that benefit the poor and the middle class expands the economy ***because they spend that money***. This leaves more money in everyone's pockets at the end of the day also.

Subsistence living is not a good thing, I agree. We can give people fish, or teach them how to fish. I'm for teaching them how to fish. That costs money. That means investing in the poor and middle class.

For Jim's idea to ... (Below threshold)
For Jim's idea to work you not only have to....

...understand context, but apply it.

But you have to forgive...

...PBunyan. He's not an understanding-context-if-it-disproves-my-ideology kind of guy.

All we have to do,... (Below threshold)
Jlawson:
All we have to do, in order to save FAR MORE MONEY THAN THIS BUDGET DOES FOR THIS YEAR, is put taxes on the wealthy back to where they were under Clinton.

Is what I'm saying clearer now?
Man, you're losing me here and I'm not following your numbers.

So we raise taxes to Clinton era levels, which might bring in a hundred billion more.

We're still fucked to the tune of about $1.2 tril in deficit spending, annually, for the foreseeable future. The budget will be nowhere near balanced, by any stretch of the imagination. It has to be cut, and cut deep.

I swear, it's like you guys keep saying that 2+2=42, you've just got to use the proper values for 2. The money isn't there to keep spending they way we have been.

Jim XHow about usi... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

How about using this money to cut down on some of the deficit

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259528/federal-government-s-unspent-billions-deroy-murdock

Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) holds the treasure map. He and his team cite an Office of Management and Budget document with the riveting title “Balances of Budget Authority — Budget of the U.S. Government — Fiscal Year 2011.”
On page 8, Table 1 indicates in black and white that this fiscal year’s federal budget contains $703,128,000,000 in “unobligated balances.” Thus, more than $703 billion languishes on department, agency, and program ledgers. This includes $12.2 billion unspent at the Agriculture Department, $16.4 billion at Labor, $25.2 billion at Housing and Urban Development, $71.4 billion at Defense, and $309.1 billion at Treasury.

While unspent obligated money must be stewarded for specific purposes for up to five years, these unobligated funds “have not yet been committed by contract or other legally binding action by the government,” OMB explains.

...

In fact, Senator Coburn’s office estimates that $82.4 billion of these funds are between six and 20 years old! You read correctly: At this very second, the federal budget contains $82.4 billion that has hibernated in numerous accounts between FY 1991 and FY 2005. While agency chiefs and lobbyists might scream that these funds are sacred, such arguments become hilarious when applied to taxpayer dollars that have remained untouched for at least half a dozen years.

Team Coburn reckons that at least $100 billion of these unobligated funds safely could be applied to budget reduction.
Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) holds the treasure map. He and his team cite an Office of Management and Budget document with the riveting title “Balances of Budget Authority — Budget of the U.S. Government — Fiscal Year 2011.”
On page 8, Table 1 indicates in black and white that this fiscal year’s federal budget contains $703,128,000,000 in “unobligated balances.” Thus, more than $703 billion languishes on department, agency, and program ledgers. This includes $12.2 billion unspent at the Agriculture Department, $16.4 billion at Labor, $25.2 billion at Housing and Urban Development, $71.4 billion at Defense, and $309.1 billion at Treasury.

While unspent obligated money must be stewarded for specific purposes for up to five years, these unobligated funds “have not yet been committed by contract or other legally binding action by the government,” OMB explains.

...

In fact, Senator Coburn’s office estimates that $82.4 billion of these funds are between six and 20 years old! You read correctly: At this very second, the federal budget contains $82.4 billion that has hibernated in numerous accounts between FY 1991 and FY 2005. While agency chiefs and lobbyists might scream that these funds are sacred, such arguments become hilarious when applied to taxpayer dollars that have remained untouched for at least half a dozen years.

Team Coburn reckons that at least $100 billion of these unobligated funds safely could be applied to budget reduction.

Also Jim X there are training programs out there>

Go to the state workforce commissions (In Texas it is called the Texas workforce commission, I dont know what other state programs are called). They are pretty much a waste of resources. How about giving companies tax breaks to train workers?

Instead we are busy extending unemploymnt benefits for folks for 3 years. They are making $6 an h our sitting on their ass and doing nothing vs making it trying to flip burgers at McDonalds or going out and trying to dig ditches.

If they are between 18 and 40 and want free medical care here is a great job training program for you. It's called THE ARMY.

When people HAVE TO WORK to get paid they generally get around to doing so.


Jim X"All we have ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

"All we have to do, in order to save FAR MORE MONEY THAN THIS BUDGET DOES FOR THIS YEAR, is put taxes on the wealthy back to where they were under Clinton.

"
Just because you say it enough times doesnt mean that it is true. Do you say "I am going to win the lottery" over and over again?

When are you going to STOP IGNORING SIMPLE FACTS

In 2010 the total revenue from ALL TAXPAYERS was $1.4 trillion

Deficit for this year is $1.6 trillion.

If you double the amount of income taxes people paid last year in one fell swoop we still wouldnt pay the deficit for this year.

Also WHEN WILL YOU SHOW US THAT CONGRESS WILL ACTUALLY NOT SPEND THE MONEY ON PET PROJECTS INSTEAD OF ON THINGS YOU ARE SUGGESTING?

The answer is you cant.

You blindly ignore simple math.
You continue to want to increase taxes by 3% when increasing the tax revenue by 100% would not close the budget deficit.
You refuse to answer SIMPLE QUESTIONS.


"In 2010 the total revenue ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"In 2010 the total revenue from ALL TAXPAYERS was $1.4 trillion"

should read


In 2010 the total income tax revenue from ALL TAXPAYERS was $1.4 trillion


BTW Jim

Want to spur economic growth.

Open ANWAR and gulf coast drilling so we get our own oil instead of sending billions overseas for it. It is estimated that 10000 jobs were lost due to Obama's drilling policies.

Business pay less for gas they have more money to spendon other things.

Simple math Jim. Even though you totally ignore it it is still showing you up as a total fool.


really and what do... (Below threshold)
really and what do the rich do with it? Stuff it in their mattresses!!!!

More like, put it in T-bills, or foreign investments, or *maybe* spend it here if they feel like it.

Companies don't hire because they have more money. Companies that stay in business only hire if and when they have demand, you see. And what creates demand? People buying things. And what economic range does the most purchasing? Why, the poor and middle class.

That's how it works.

Jim xIf I give poo... (Below threshold)
Hcddbz:

Jim x

If I give poor people money and they spend it all. They need me to keep giving them more money for them to spend. They are therefore completely dependent on government. It the reason why welfare and food stamps became generational programs. If you want to provide a hand up yes hand out no.

Companies do pay taxes. Most pay quarterly .
However when rates are high gues what companies do not just sit and take it they find ways to exploit the tax code. That why 20%. Simple and clear no loopholes. This way companies spend time on making a profit instead of evading conficatory tax codes.

A companies obligation is to make a profit. If they can do that be growing they will. A companies purpose in life is not to be a piggy bank for federal government.


Jim x all those programs what have they done?

Man, you're losing... (Below threshold)
Man, you're losing me here and I'm not following your numbers.

Maybe you're still thinking I'm saying raise taxes **Instead of** cutting the budget.

I'm not. What I'm saying is, if the deficit really is such an all-fired-important worry, why not put the tax levels for the wealthy back where they were under Clinton, ALSO?

I just don't see how more money is worse than less money.

Isn't 100 billion in more tax revenue plus this alleged $34 billion in cuts, better than just $34 billion in cuts? I should think so. Is there some reason why it's not?

And if you really want to close the gap, then push for corporations to actually pay their current tax rates - rather than actually get payouts from the rest of us.

I don't see how that's such a crazy plan.

Just because you s... (Below threshold)
Just because you say it enough times doesnt mean that it is true.

OK, prove to me that I'm wrong then. That should be easy, right?

Show me how returning the taxes for the wealthy to where they were under Clinton, WOULDN'T save more than the $34 billion in tax cuts.

Show me how, even if the tax return was "merely" $34 billion, that $34 billion in more income PLUS $34 billion in budget cuts is somehow worse than only $34 billion in budget cuts.

Otherwise, just because you keep saying I'm wrong without posting any facts, doesn't mean I'm actually wrong.

BTW, retired military.... (Below threshold)

BTW, retired military.

Want to really cut some fat from the budget? Eliminate the waste in the Pentagon, the money given to subsidize oil companies that don't need it, and the freaking money given to NASCAR.

Which was pushed while they cut money instead to military vets in freaking hospitals. Wow, that GOP sure takes care of our boys in uniform, don't they?

That's right, in this GOP-approved budget, $74 million got cut from military veteran hospitals - but $34 million was put in to help promote NASCAR.

Seem like a good idea to you? No? Then don't blame Pelosi.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/gpvdh/this_year_we_cut_75_million_in_homeless_veteran/

Ah, slightly wrong numbers.... (Below threshold)

Ah, slightly wrong numbers. $75 million cut for veterans, $24 million pumped in for NASCAR. Still, for crap's sake. One year of no subsidies for gas companies would have paid for veterans several times over. But hey, why listen to a liberal? Everything about this budget is just awesome. We get to watch some people drive in a circle. That's worth more veterans not getting the care they need, isn't it, retired military?

retired military,<blo... (Below threshold)

retired military,

If I give poor people money and they spend it all. They need me to keep giving them more money for them to spend.

No, because once again you are completely ignoring the use of money as an investment. You say you understand this, but you constantly miss it.

Give someone a hand up, not a hand out, and in the future they will repay MANY TIMES the small money they used with their future success in the economy. But there are many forms of hands up. Job retraining. Improved education in urban areas. Day care for the poor so families with children can work. Health care for the poor so they have a chance to grow up healthy. Things which are not only good morally, but good pragmatically - because this is a moral universe, and in the long term the best thing morally really is the best thing practically.


Companies do pay taxes.

Well, clearly not all of them.

That why 20%. Simple and clear no loopholes. This way companies spend time on making a profit instead of evading conficatory tax codes.

Hey, I'm with it. Also I'm with 25%. BUt mostly I'm with corporations having to pay at all. But since as you say companies will hire experts to get out of paying, that requires a strong and robust government to keep on top of them and make sure they pay.

A companies purpose in life is not to be a piggy bank for federal government.

And a taxpayer's purpose in life is not to be a piggy bank for companies. That requires a strong Federal government, to make sure that companies don't overpower the rights of the people.


Jim x all those programs what have they done?

You mean, besides Pell Grants, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, Head Start, food programs for children, and on and on?

They've saved lives, and they've lifted many people out of poverty. That's how FDR got us out of the Great Depression, was programs like that which put people to work. That's why those programs continued and were expanded. That's why it's much harder for people to starve to death in America today. That's why it's easier for people to get jobs that are better than jobs their fathers had - which is how things used to be, as recently as the 1950's. That's why those programs are still around. That's why when these kinds of programs' funding was increased the Clinton economy took off - far more than either Bush on either side of him.

Jim X -I read what... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Jim X -

I read what you wrote.

All we have to do, in order to save FAR MORE MONEY THAN THIS BUDGET DOES FOR THIS YEAR, is put taxes on the wealthy back to where they were under Clinton.
You really don't get it, do you?

We're at a point where even getting an extra $100 bil isn't going to be enough. An extra $100 billion from corp taxes? Still not enough. The levee's got a hell of a hole, and you're arguing we need to buy another mop. Two mops won't help, or three, or a dozen. You've got to plug the hole in the levee before you can even begin to clean up the mess.

Want to raise rates to the Clinton era? Fine - then cut spending to the Clinton era also, and roll back regulatory loads to that time. Do that, and you're right - the economy would improve. We'd run a surplus each year - but the idiots inside the Beltway would look at all that money and... you know what'd happen.

"But we really ought to fund this!"
"It's only a few billion, why not?"
"It's something that'd do good for (fill in the blank) - so we'd get their votes."
"It's for the children! Please, sir, may we have just a FEW billion, for the children?"

Pretty soon payments on the debt would shrink... then cease. And that surplus would disappear - and soon (5-10 years) we'd be back running a deficit.

*sigh*

You're smart. You've got to see we're screwed. We're beyond screwed, we're damn near in FUBAR territory. If taxes are raised, spending WON'T get cut. If taxes stay the same, spending MIGHT get cut. If taxes are lowered - we'll still need to cut spending.

If spending is cut - then MAYBE we can start to recover, with maybe increasing taxes down the road when the economy can afford it. (You don't pump blood into one arm of a trauma victim, while tapping him for a pint on the other arm, after all.)

But for now? Cut the spending first.

You really don't g... (Below threshold)
You really don't get it, do you?

You mean, I don't get whatever "it" is that makes someone think cutting taxes on those who can most afford **doesn't** add to the deficit?

You're right, I don't get that at all.

We're at a point where even getting an extra $100 bil isn't going to be enough. An extra $100 billion from corp taxes? Still not enough.

Uh-huh. By the way, that's 200 billion a year right there. So, in ten years that's another $2 trillion. Cut the budget on that, and that goes a long way towards solving the problem, wouldn't you say?

Want to raise rates to the Clinton era? Fine - then cut spending to the Clinton era also, and roll back regulatory loads to that time.

Except that what led to the collapse of 2007 ***WAS*** the lack of regulation. And most specifically the repeal of Glass-Steagall in the late 1990's. Which I freely admit was a bipartisan screwup - Clinton signed the repeal handed to him by the GOP Senate.

Nevertheless, this financial collapse shows that the stock market needs more regulation, not less.

... you know what'd happen.

"But we really ought to fund this!"
"It's only a few billion, why not?"

So what - after the problem was fixed, people might make some problems?

And? I don't see how that means we shouldn't fix the problem. And I don't see how that changes the fact that, if the deficit really is such a horrible monster, putting taxes back where they were under Clinton does far more than simply cutting the budgets for programs the GOP happens not to like.

But for now? Cut the spending first.

Nope, disagree. Besides the moral reasons for **not** shafting the poor and ***not*** shifting the burden onto the Middle class while the only people not sacrificing more are the rich - there's the pragmatic reasons - that deficit spending gets economies out of depressions and recessions, and booms that follow can be when surpluses are created.

After all, that's how we got the surplus under Clinton. Doing just what you say is impossible and can never happen - raising taxes and cutting spending, while still also wisely investing in programs that truly benefit the long-term interests of the poor, the middle-class, and thus the entire country including the wealthy as well.

That would be the smart thing to do. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't try and do the smartest thing. Why not? YOu can bet our economic competitors will.

To be clear with the above ... (Below threshold)

To be clear with the above comment, sure there's plenty of waste that can be cut. But what shouldn't be cut is the lifelines that the poor and middle class are depending on. Once again, besides the many moral reasons for keeping them afloat, their spending is the fuel for our economy.

Jim x,It you that ... (Below threshold)
Hcddbz:

Jim x,

It you that do not understand investment. Government hand outs do not work. Talk a walk in Newark NJ, Trenton or any other major city or town with a high degree of people on the dole. There is no return on investment just a greater and greater degree of people who are on the dole.

I know the bs Kenysain beielf that for every dollar spent by the government 3 dollars are generated. It model that does not work. It did not work during the new deal. It not work with Stimulis . Maybe you could say tarp worked in that most banks paid back the money at 20 -25% interest. But I thought that TARP and auto bailout were both bad deals.

Also we spent books on public education what is the return?

We need to stop throwing money at issues and fix problems by holding people accountable for the products they produce.

Jim X"More like, p... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

"More like, put it in T-bills, or foreign investments, or *maybe* spend it here if they feel like it.

"

T Bills- you mean the ones that pay like 1% when you can invest in businesses and make 3 times that?

"But what shouldn't be cut is the lifelines that the poor and middle class are depending on"

And I dont see anyone suggesting that. I do see people suggesting that people should be able to keep more of their own money instead of freely giving to the govt to decide who is better deserving of it (Generally because the govt decides that the people who run the govt are better deserving of it).

Increase tax deductions for write offs to charities. Oooohhhh cant do that because then the chariities who are much more efficient in getting the money to where it does the most good arent the politicians who can put their names on bridges and roads. Take a drive through WV sometime and see how many things say Robert Byrd on them.

THe govt spends billions on bike paths instead of job training. You have dem politicians going ballistic when you try to pass a law that says that you cant get money from debit cards that they give the poor nowadays from ATMs in Casinos.


REf NASCAR

Hey I am all for cutting out all unnescessary items from the budget whether they are in defense or anywhere else. I would love to see it cut.

"Give someone a hand up, not a hand out, and in the future they will repay MANY TIMES the small money they used with their future success in the economy"

But Jim you overlook the obvious. DEMS WANT TO GIVE HAND OUTS AND NOT HAND UPS. IF THERE WERE A LOT FEWER POOR PEOPLE THAN DEMS WOULDNT BE IN POWER AT ALL.


Again you are ignoring a basic construct of our politicians. THEY WONT SPEND MONEY THE WAY THEY SHOULD SO WHY FREELY GIVE IT TO THEM?

You live with that Pie in the sky attitude of if only Congress had the money things would be just fine when in fact Congress (on both sides) have proven repeatedly that it wont be.


"That's how FDR got us out of the Great Depression, was programs like that which put people to work."

That is what caused the great depression to last as long as it did.

You ignore basic economic facts. Dollars spent by private individuals have a greater multiplier effect than dollars spent by govt.

You are living in a fantasy world in which everyone does what they are supposed to where as others who are posting are LIVING IN REALITY. I only wish reality was a bit closer than your fantasy world.

BTW you still neglected to even address the tax revenue subject which I have brought up numerous times or shown where Congress can spend less than what it receives.

I can prove very quickly that COngress cannot spend only what it receives no matter how high you raise taxes.

IT'S CALLED $14 TRILLION IN THE NATIONAL DEBT.

Jim X":After all, ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

":After all, that's how we got the surplus under Clinton"

No we got the surplus under Clinton by Welfare reform and Slashing defense to the bone.

And I point out yet again. There was no surplus under clinton because Social security income was used (and still is) as part of the budget. The only thing then was that Social security was running a HUGE surplus where as today it is running a deficit.

"there's the pragmatic rea... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"there's the pragmatic reasons - that deficit spending gets economies out of depressions and recessions, and booms that follow can be when surpluses are created."

That is the fallacy in your thinking. All recessions end no matter what the govt does. Businesses adjust if given the opportunity to do so.

"That would be the smart thing to do. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't try and do the smartest thing."

Jim , the govt has been trying it your way for the past 2.5 years and Look where it has gotten us. Trillion dollar deficits every year for years to come.

Again, SHOW ME WHERE THE PROOF GOVT WILL SPEND THE MONEY THE WAY YOU WANT IT SPENT. You cant. that is why you simply ignore the question. Instead we have $73 million on NASCAR

BTW the military hospital cuts can be explained by this.

in WW2 we had 5 million people in the army. Those people are dying at the rate of 5k a day or so. MAny of them were able to receive care at VA or military hospitals. When the patient pool diminishes the cost of doing business goes down especially when it is diminished by the costliest patients. I am a vet and not make the above statement likely but geriatric tables are facts. Lefties have a hard problem dealing with facts. Hence you dogged disregard for my questions and totally ignoring of my facts.

Jim XHow much job ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

How much job training could that $73 million of NASCAR money have bought?

The middle of the govt shutdown talks and Harry Ried was worried about the cowboy poetry festival being cancelled.

How many millions did Nancy Pelosi spend flying family and friends around at govt expense?

Tell me again how if only the govt had more of our tax money to spend that they would do all the grandiose things that you want them to do with it.

Keep saying "I am going to win the lottery, I am going to win the lottery, I am going to win the lottery" . Someday it just may come true.

Oh and JimANyone t... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Oh and Jim

ANyone that is 18-40 and reasonably healthy that tells me "I cant find a job" I tell them I know where they can get a job today, with free health care benefits and one of the greates job training programs on the planet. I even offer to drive them to where they can apply. When they ask where it is I tell them the military recruiting station.

Funny, I havent had one person take me up on the offer yet. It goes to show you. Jobs and opportunities are out there but people just dont want to take them.


If you had a relative that ... (Below threshold)
John:

If you had a relative that spent money as irresponsibly as our current federal government would you give that relative money to waste? We have a political class that can not find a way to cut even the most nonsensical spending but the solution for liberals here is to give them more. Tell you what, when the government and our elected betters show they can be serious about cutting back to appropriate levels of spending then let's talk about what the proper funding levels for government should be. Like many have said here, if we give this bunch of idiots more money they will give to cowboy poets.

How about just going back t... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

How about just going back to the 2008 budget? That's what most want to do. Obamalama is using his highly inflated stimulus budget to demonstrate "cuts".

I live in the Great State Of Texas, where we naturally do not trust government. Our legislature meets every other year and only for a few months. Plus they do not get very much money. If they want to tax or raise money by other routes, it has to be put to a vote. Now that is democracy. ww ABO

There is something that lib... (Below threshold)
Stan:

There is something that libs, like Jimx and Hyper don't realize. When everyone goes on the dole, where is the money that they receive going to come from? Surely not the taxpayer, because there won't be any to pay for the mess. That is what the libs really want — everyone on the dole so they can control what they say, do and go. That was tried in the old Soviet Union with disastrous results. You can also be sure that the oligarchy will not be giving anyone their money to help out. So basically, "we the people" will be living like the serfs in the middle ages again.

Jim, all you are doing is r... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Jim, all you are doing is repeating your old unsupported claims, and by the way when you make a claim, it's on you to support it, not someone else to prove you wrong.

I'm going to unpublish your last five comments, because they are nothing but attempts to change the subject and devolve the discussion; I don't feel like allowing that. Grow up or expect to get more deleted.

Except that what led to the... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Except that what led to the collapse of 2007 ***WAS*** the lack of regulation. And most specifically the repeal of Glass-Steagall in the late 1990's. Which I freely admit was a bipartisan screwup - Clinton signed the repeal handed to him by the GOP Senate.

No it was those programs you love that configured to it.
CRA,HUD,FM/FM. The fact that Clinton wanted few large banks. The fact that Bush wanted an ownership society , but the owner could not really afford.

City, county and state governments allowed it so the could fund bigger and better programs.

All doing the boom years we kept throwing money in schools and work fare and everything not holding people accountable and what the end result? More poor, mor untrained workers and less educated people. Throwing money at it does not work. Hold peoplemaccountable does. No more taxes cut spending. Evaluate programs if they do not achieve measurable goals gut the, and move on. If government giving the poor money and eduction was the great economic engine then the inner cities would be economic powerhouses. they are not the Great Society and projects are a blight.
I hear the drug war is lost well the war on poverty is lost also.
You want less poor? Make the school system work. No more social promotion, teachers are evaluated and if they cannot cut it they get kicked out.

In business and the military we always had to do more with less it time for the rest of the Goverment to do the same.

Just in case you were wonde... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Just in case you were wondering, no, Jim could not manage to reach the minimum maturity level to participate on this thread.

This raises a question or two:

1. Isn't this censorship?

No, because Kevin owns the site and everyone else is a guest here to some degree. Writers like myself are allowed to address unacceptable behavior, and in Jim's case I have decided his rants do not advance the discussion.

2. Why not whack the other libs here, like Chico or Woop?

It's a judgment call. While annoying, there is a certain amount of amusement to be found in seeing Woop try to make an argument with no logic at all, and Chico destroys his own arguments. Jim, on the other hand, manages to be neither honest, nor intelligent, nor interesting. Like John Kerry without the money.

I thought Chico and Woop we... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

I thought Chico and Woop were just socks from the same drawer...

Dj Ban Jim, Woop and Hyper ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Dj Ban Jim, Woop and Hyper please. The level of discussion will go up. I actually look forard to seeing Bruce Henry's comments over woop's

RM, [ personal attack redac... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

RM, [ personal attack redacted] (disagreement with prior comment). [personal insult redacted] (disagreement with prior opinion) [derogatory epithet redacted, sneer removed ]

Oh I guess I was a bit hars... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Oh I guess I was a bit harsh. Sorry!

Let's try this:

RM, you are being overly sensitive. Ignore the guy or come up with a retort. Don't whine, it's unbecoming.

JIm.. I find it amazing tah... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

JIm.. I find it amazing taht the ONLY cut that democrats actually approve of are ones to constitutionally mandated function of the government, so they can save more funding to emanations of penumbras of functions of the government.

HyperWoop reminds ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper

Woop reminds me of the little kid pulling on his mother's skirt and yelling "mommy mommy" at the top of his lungs until he gets attention.

I wont say what you remind me of.

There is a complete and utt... (Below threshold)
John:

There is a complete and utter lack of seriousness in our political class. Nothing can be cut, everything is essential so the only answer is take more. It's not logical to give irresponsible people more money, they are addicts they need an intervention not a raise.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy