My accounting is perfect. I will stick by the numbers I found on government and other websites.
you used the word 'estimated', used squiggles, and claimed the 2009 deficit was $2.4T- and when corrected you claim perfection.
This is focused on federal spending only since state and local govts cannot run deficits.
ever heard of muni bonds? been reading about california? Do you have any clue that states and localities contribute to medicaid and many other social welfare services? wow, and you have the kahunas to call me uninformed.
The constitution does not mandate 800B per year on defense. If so, how did Clinton only spend 300B per year?
The constitution mandates providing for the common defense. It does not mandate anything for social spending, ag subsidies, education, etc.
FY 2000 Defense was $359, but he wasn't fighting a war. Simple logic dictates that it must go up from there.
Funny you should bring something like that up after Obama's sudden deficit-busting increase in medicaid disguised as stimulus, sort funny you would never suggest we go back to Bill Clinton levels when it comes to that, eh?
Half the deficit right now= eliminate stimulus. It was supposed to be temporary anyway.
Your argument that defense is paid for first out of tax receipts, with everything else being debt, is completely ludicrous.
...and your argument that defense should last is completely sound? Income tax receipts are more than enough to cover defense and your blatant dishonesty to include all social welfare spending is either gross stupidity or gross dishonesty.
The taxes for social security and medicare are to pay for those programs, by law. The remaining ~2.4T is to be paid for by the remaining taxes. So since defense takes up 1/3 of the unfunded spending, it is responsible for 1/3 of the debt. The other programs you mentioned are responsible for the other ~1T in deficit spending. They are part of the unfunded part of spending too.
You apparently are unaware of income and corporate taxes, which should be for constitutionaly mandated programs like defense. Your 'unfunded spending' of 2.4T is made up and meaningless because you ignore the fact that medicare is in the red now as is medicaid and SSI. you ignore the massive unfunded future liabilities, you ignore health and human services, SCHIP, Medicare parts B-C, etc.
There is no way to refute my argument that defense spending is responsible for 500B per year in deficit, give or take rounding error.
I have twice.
So, instead of arguing, I will propose solutions. We need to decide what is absolutely needed to keep the country safe and win our present and future wars. All other defense spending on fancy projects that defend against threats we might face 20 years down the road needs to be cut.
oh, 'WE' need to decide, but then YOU proceeded to decide for me that we don't need to worry about threats 20 years down the road. Thanks but I can't work with people like you.
Cutting the deficit by 50% to 700B or 750B, depending on ones deficit estimate, is not enough.
Eliminate wasteful stimulus and bailouts, job done. Elimate ag subsidies, eliminate keeping 80 year olds on life support, eliminate saving crack babies... but I know those common sense savings would go right over your head and you'll blame it all on defense.
The deficit needs to be cut to500B. We make 1T worth of cuts as follows: Cut defense spending by 300B until the wars are won.
Oh yes, defense gets the ax first, never mind that the soldiers need actual weapons to fight with, just cut their budget and send them on their way. You really don't know how stupid and dangerous this suggestion is do you? You have no concept of overhead.
When the wars are won, cut another 100B from defense. Cut 500B from the remaining 1.6T of unfunded spending while the wars are fought. Once the wars are won, reduce this cut to 400B. Cut social security and medicare by 200B. Although these programs have run surpluses, they have to feel the pain, too.
SSI + medicare are not in surplus in either 2009 or 2010, but you will ignore that. No mention at all of medicaid, SCHIP, HHS, HUD, Stimulus, agriculture, education, etc.
completely biased and unrealistic
Deep cuts like these are the only way to save this country in my opinion. Obviously, it is doubtful they will happen. Congress had no problem increasing spending from 1.9T in the last budget under Clinton, to 3.1T in the last budget under Bush, to 3.8T in the last budget under Obama. Cutting spending on the other hand...
You mean deep cuts in defense because that is all you libs can imagine cutting, you could have saved a lot of time and just said that.