The only way to balance the budget and start to cover our obligations is 1) To manage spending and its growth 1) To have a reasonable tax policy that provides for a reliable income stream 3) To develop a positive immigration policy that allows broad latitude to accepting newcomers and those who are presently here 4) have reasonable but not onerous regulation and 4) To have the economy grow a 4-5%/year for the forseeable future. The first three conditions set the stage for the real driver, a strong economy. History has 2 recent examples here and a great one overseas. First Reagan and his congress cut what were then too high taxes resolve social security problems for 25 years and modified immigration policy. The economy exploded in growth and government revenues shot up. Unfortuneatly he wasn't able to control spending and between defense build up and social spending the deficit increased. Bill Clinton and his congress also revised the tax code (some went up some went down) and made other deals. This time at the Rs insistance they controlled spending. Both Reagan and Clinton streamlined regulation. Again the economy exploded government revenues went up and because we had controlled spending the deficit dissapeared. Finally at the same time Reagan was in office Maggy Thacher did the same in England. When W Bush took office he loosed the control on spending and cut taxes and fought 2 wars without paying for them and the surplus dissapeared. BHO continues to spend more and has shown no inclination to slow down and his continuing drive to over regulate the economy supresses growth. The key lesson is from these examples is that one leg of the solution tree isn't enough to do what is needed. At sometime both sides are going to need to grow up and do what is right. Frankly neither side seems willing or able. BTW this broad coverage is easy to posit and I realize the devil is in the details but if you don't lay out the problems and goals and solutions/requirements to achieve them you will never get started.
Medicaid = 7.28% Housing = 1.59% Food & Nutrition = 2.83% TANF and "other" = 5.67% total = 17.37% Social Security = 20.04% Defense = 19.27% I thought you were an accountant. This BS story is based on Sessions SBC "analysis"!!! The admitted fact that he "adjusted" the official numbers makes it invalid by definition. He offered no basis for this adjustment so it cannot be challenged. He simply made up numbers to fit his argument. You don't even believe them, you re just being contrary.
I bet al gore isn't happy. He's bout to get shit taxed out of him. $100 million richer. He's gonna get an Obama waiver and park his yacht next to Kerry's. funny how the bastards that want to tax the rich so bad are usually the ones that owe the IRS the most
And I thought you had basic reading comprehension skills. I said Medicaid and Income Security combined made up the largest expenditure. Medicaid 7.48% Income Security 14.28% total 21.76% 21.76 > than any other budgetary item. No it isn't. It is based on an analysis by the heritage foundation, that was fact checked by the CRS and then presented to the SBC. The Sessions adjustments to the Obama baseline budget are unrelated. You clearly don't know what Sessions adjusted. His staff adjusted the budget with the automatic triggers set in place when the last debt ceiling debate was held and the automatic tax increases that were coming, and adjusted it according to Obama's stated policy iniatives. You realize Obama administration adjusted that same baseline as well? You do realize the main difference was the spin from either party. Sessions staff highlighted the spending increases. Obama highlighted the revenue increases, and the token deficit reduction. Outside of the spin there was little difference. And still, you have yet to produce any evidence that the Sessions adjustments were invalid. The CBO scoring of the fiscal cliff deal highlights that Sessions was right. The deal will add 4 trillion to the debt and actually decreases revenue to the federal government, unless Congress acts to fix a whole slew of issues on the spending side. I don't believe the bullshit 168 a day number. I do beleive that social spending, in aggregate, is now the biggest budgetary line item, but I beleive that because it is true. I don't know why Heritage lied by saying it was all going to the poor. The truth is bad enough.
But that includes unemployment compensation and the earned income child credit which in no way can be construed as "welfare". Unemployment compensation is available to every working taxpayer that has been laid off, indigents are not eligible. The earned income child credit is for low-income working taxpayers, not the indigent. You are trying to lie with numbers, I guess you are an accountant after all. The "Heritage Foundation" is an ultra-conservative organization with people like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity as members. Their "analysis" is no less political than Sessions. They fudged the official numbers to suit themselves. Pure and simple. What makes this valid? They fudged the real numbers. Where exactly did they do that? Nor you that they were valid. The point is that they didn't use the real numbers, that is the only point I have been making and it is still the truth. Consider that it is not the only lie being told along these lines by the same source.
Here's another lie. " if you make bellow $250,000. You will not see your taxes increased by $.01 ". Then they agree to a %50 increase in payroll tax (4.2 to 6.2%). Plus increases in social security tax.
First of all Social Security is a payroll tax. Secondly, the $250,000 limit was for income tax, not payroll taxes. Third, the payroll taxes are what you pay for medicare and Social Security, which are not entirely funded. This is a tax that makes you eligible and keeps your benefits from being cut. Fourth, these are not new taxes. We always paid these taxes before a payroll tax holiday was declared two years ago to put more dollars into the economy. Well, the tax holiday expires as was always intended. Now we must continue to pay the taxes that support Social Security and Medicare. Irresponsible Republicans always want something for nothing.
Unemployment compensation is now extended to 64 weeks. Who can't find a job in over a year? There is a point when the laid off become indigents. Twenty-six weeks may be reasonable given the circumstances, but 64 weeks for a fast food employee? Come on. That is just not reasonable. The earned income credit is the very worst form of socialism. It takes from the skilled and productive and awards the unskilled and the unproductive. What I am doing is telling the truth with numbers. More of our budget is going to social spending than anything else, and it is moving from exessive to very excessive. I never said the Heritage study was valid. I said the exact opposite, that it was bull shit. The point, which you missed, is that the Heritage study is no way related to the Sessions adjustments to the baseline budget, as you stated. Youn intentionally mingled two separate and unrelated studies by two different organizations to make a stupid point. For one, the baseline had built in tax increases for all Americans. the Obama Administration adjusted the revenues down as his desired policy was to only raise taxes on those making above 250,000. They also increased the level of spending from the baseline for certain programs. By your logic there numbers are invalid because they adjusted the budget. In reality they adjusted the projection of what was to be by their assumed impact of their policy positions. Which was spun in the most politically beneficial light. The Sessions staff both unspun the Administration spin, then spun in the Repbulican platform spin. So at the end of the day we got to adjustments from the baseline which were essentially the same, just spun in different ways. And Sessions projections ended up being essentially true. We wound up with a budget that will grow deficits by 4 trillion dollars over ten years through a combination of spending increases and decreased revenue.
Irresponsible Republicans always want something for nothing. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. The only thing republicans want to do us keep more of the money they actually earn. It's the democrats that want to reward the lazy by "spreading the wealth around" because it sure helps get them votes.
