I did check it for myself. I've written on it.

About 15% of the budget is on defense.

WiseFawn: YES, most of the debt is from social programs. If most of the money we spend is on social programs then most of the debt is, by connection, from social programs.

Jeb: Social security is a welfare program precisely because you get more money than what you put in. Most people get VASTLY more money than they put in. Besides, it IS a social program whether you agree with it being welfare or not.

Here's the piechart of federal expenses from 2000: https://www.stardock.com/temp/taxchart2000.jpg

Look guys, if you want to get rid of the debt, you have to cut the budget. And if you want to cut the budget you have to cut the things we actually spend money on.

Blaming defense is asanine. First, because it's one of the few things we can all agree on that the federal government should be in charge of. And secondly, because defense represents a relatively small part of the budget. If you want to solve the deficit and debt you have to cut the social spending.

Sheesh, it's no wonder so many people are in personal debt. It's like those people who cancel their cable bill to try to make ends meet while going out to eat 4 times a week.

While I believe you have checked it out, I don't think you're actually listening to what I'm saying.

71% of the national budget is into entitlements. Those are things which the US government is not supposed to touch. Why do I include Social Security into that? Because Social Security isn't the government's money. However it gets paid out, it does get paid into by a person and taken out by a person. Same with Medicare and Medicaid.

Removing 71% of the national budget from your pretty pie chart and what do you get?
Defense becomes 59% of the national budget
Education, by comparison is less than 12% of the national budget.

Now I know your arguement is that we should get rid of many of these entitlements, but the thing is, your tax return lists those as seperate from your federal income tax. Which means your paying something else. Sure it's an income tax, but it's not categorized the same. Which means if the programs were eliminated, those that could be anyway, like social security, medicare and medicaid, the money would not some how miraculously end up in the federal governments pocket. It would instead go back to the consumer. Sure that's a great thing, but it would do nothing to reduce deficits nor would it pay down the debt. You want to get rid of those programs? Great for you, but it doesn't help the budget any, and don't pretend like it does.

Cheers

Jeb: Let's use some common sense here okay?

We have a huge national debt. What is the cause for this national debt? Spending more than we're getting in. BTW, 15% of the budget is also spent on interest in the debt.

It's madness to try to solve the national debt by fixating on the 14% (100% - (71% + 15%)) that happens to be left after you take out entitlements and interest.

The education portion of the budget is a strawman argument. State and local goverments pay for schools and should be what pays for school.

If you actually WANT to cut the deficit, as opposed to bitch about it, you h ave to cut some from everything. Tell us Jeb, how much did the United States spend, in total, on defense last year? Was it greater than the deficit? No. So even if we totally eliminated our military, we would still have a deficit. And the military is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to exist for doing in the first place.

BTW, Medicaid IS welfare. You have to be poor to get it.

Lest I be badly mistaken [and I have been before]Medicad is an attatchement to social security,Supposeedly an insurance supplemental, and an add on some several years after its inception as many other riders.First you get social security by becoming sixty two or sixty five for full benefits.Rich people draw SS sick people draw SS. the latest angle now is to work for a company say ninteen or twenty yrs.hurt your back get an attorney apply for early retirement ,get your pension and SS. and live happy ever after.Another extra added cost was when Insurance companies got bailed out by making Medicade your primary Ins.Nobody complained.And as far as the pie is concerned, as long as the goverment has the knife they will cut it any way they want.--- charlie poore

Thanks for all the stimulating comments--Jefferson thanks you too. However, my point is when a nation strives to end strife in the world--as this nation has all through the 20th century to the present-- it inevitably leads to national deficit. Also when a nation is controlled by big money--and this nation is--it inevitablyleads to a struggle between haves and have nots,resulting in a national conscience only sometimes, thus social programs either cut or enhanced, which we wouldn't need if good paying workfare was the norm.

Charles, Medicare != Medicaid.

Steven - the national debt is NOT caused primarily by defense spending. The United States spends only about 3% of its GDP on defense. It's not exactly going overboard relative to its economy on defense. The British Empire, for instance, at one point in the late 19th century, was spending nearly 25% of its GDP on defense.

The nation today is LESS controlled by big money than at any other time in its history. Hell, you couldn't even VOTE in the United States at first unless you were a property holder.

What exactly is "workfare"? The United States is nearly fully employed NOW. Unemployment is 6%, that's less than any major country in Europe. And yet we're STILL running huge deficits. You can't blame that on military spending.

Before quoting Thomas Jefferson, you might actually want to learn about him. I agree with Jeb that he's not exactly someone to idolize blindly but let's say he was. What would he say today? He would want to eliminate all the social programs first off.

Thomas Jefferson's beliefs aren't secret, he wrote them and carried out his fiscal beliefs as President:

1) He wanted to eliminate all federal tax collection.
2) He did not want the federal government to do anything beyond defense (And barely that).
3) He believed that the states should have more power than the federal government.
4) He certainly would not have tolerated a federal income tax.
5) He certainly wouldn't have accepted the federal government redistributing people's wealth.

If Jefferson was forced to choose a major political party today, he would be a very very FAR right wing Republican. Realistically, he was a libertarian.

First of all, Brad, it would make better conversation if we defined spending. I am not one against defense spending for the obvious reason it means jobs — whole communities depend on it. Since 3% of GDP is for defense we forget that defense, too, is part of the GDP and probably responsible in the way of spin-off business and labor to cause a greater GDP, let’s say another 10% at least. If so, it has made the nation richer. Nor do I feel that social programs need be negative. Uncle Sam has never been generous; on the contrary he takes from Peter to pay Paul and Mary, resulting in a return to Peter.

I know its difficult for a CEO to understand that taxes are nothing but an investment to insure the flow of capital to where it will do the most good and by so doing strengthen the nation and its economy. The welfare mother’s purchase of a loaf of bread goes back to the baker who never would have realized that particular purchase had it not been for your tax investment, and the baker with enough welfare receipts might just happen to purchase one of your products. Long ago the government figured out that for every dollar spent on the G.I. Bill returned seven. And social security put Florida and Arizona on the map with its monthly checks.

Workfare is a means by which welfare is reduced by putting the “lazy” or chronic recipients under supervised work, such as cleaning up the ghettos, repairing bridges or whatever.

As for Jefferson, however ingenious he was, did not have a crystal ball far into the future. Yet he did, in spite of his beliefs, forge a powerful central government and had his way in the purchase of Louisiana not only to expand but to enhance the prestige and power of the new nation. Realistically, he probably would be a centrist.

Steve, saying Jefferson would be a centrist today is absurd.  One book that I really enjoyed that wasn't directly about Jefferson but covered him a great deal was Adams by James McColough (sp).

We have a huge debt.  The debt is caused because the federal government spends more than it gets in. You either have to increase income or reduce expenses. The deficit is large enough and the debt so vast that raising taxes would not likely do the trick and besides, it rewards poor financial management.

What pro-mommy government people don't realize, typically because they've never dealt with the government itself, is that the government is incredibly inefficient and incompotent.  It's not like your tax dollar goes to some poor person directly. Instead, it goes through a huge beauracracy which eats up most of it and then a small amount makes it back.  Nothing is more efficient than individuals spending their own money and living within their means.

The debt is not caused by welfare to poor people. It's not caused by defense. It's caused by an over expenditure in both social programs and non-social programs. 

The reason this issue won't get solved is that people who care enough to even talk about this issue have no apparent idea of what the government spends its money on in the first place.  You have jeb talking about education as if it's mainly funded by the federal government when in fact arguably the federal government shouldn't be spending anything on public schools (it's a state issue).  The biggest problem is that the federal government is spending money on things that really have nothing to do with the job of the federal government.

Just because you believe in welfare doesn't mean that the federal government is the one to provide it.  The federal government is the least equipped to provide these programs because of its inherent inefficiecy. It would be much better for states or local communities to handle it if you don't trust charities (for some reason, liberals don't like charities and instead want the government to do instead despite the obvious ineptitude of governments.

People who love the government to do things are almost always people who have never had to deal with one of their agencies.  Ever deal with the phone company? Or some other big private industyr monopoly? They're usually incredibly incompotent. But that's nothing compared to the government. There is no incentive for them to be efficient becaues they can just get their budget raised and often have the support of people who think the answer is just to spend more money on things regardless of the outcome.

There is incredible efficiency in the Post Office--except when you go there to mail a package. Nevertheless, they handle all thebusiness junk mail too well. FDR never had anything against charities, the high tax bracket generated huge donations. I'm afraid your deep belief in the states and/or business handling money effectively is a dream--they're just as bad and less trustworthy. I don't know what else is left, perhaps outsourcing the government--China might do a better job, certainly cheaper. Yet I'm not against small businesses bidding with a prospectus where they could do better in certain areas of government. Amen

It's madness to try to solve the national debt by fixating on the 14% (100% - (71% + 15%)) that happens to be left after you take out entitlements and interest.

I was actually counting the 15% in the 71%

If you actually WANT to cut the deficit, as opposed to bitch about it, you h ave to cut some from everything. Tell us Jeb, how much did the United States spend, in total, on defense last year? Was it greater than the deficit? No. So even if we totally eliminated our military, we would still have a deficit. And the military is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to exist for doing in the first place.

Glad you asked. The federal government pent 328 billion dollars, give or take last year. That's quite a bit more than the deficit

I agree with Jeb that he's not exactly someone to idolize blindly

I'll be jiggered, that's like the third thing we've agreed on in the past few months? ::laughs::

Anyway, you didn't address the final part of my comment that neither medicare, medicaid or Social Security, is paid out of what we consider our "Income Tax" For instance, you don't get it back as a refund at the end of the year, and you don't have to fill out a 1040 for it either. My point was that the 44% of the national budget which is not a welfare program, is actually what our Income Tax pays for. If you want your TAXES to do more good than you need to cut the programs that are affected by the 44% of the budget paid for by your income tax. Otherwise you need to convince the American people that you aren't really raising their taxes when you transfer their Social Security and welfare payroll deductions over to Income Tax. You may actually be reducing the total amount withdrawn, but there are still a lot of people who hold on to the, possibly misguided, belief that they will some day see that money. I know I'm right on the boundary of the people they project will still get Social Security, and I suspect that you are too Brad.

As you once said in a different post "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." You show the "Whole Federal Budget" and claim that they are all funded by the same principle source, the income tax, but they aren't. Yes, it's all payroll deductions, but no, it's not the same thing.

Cheers

When I was at the Library the other day, I picked up a pamphlet that caught my eye. It was called "Where do your taxes go?" According to this, if you had $1,500.00 deducted from your paycheck for the fiscal year 2004 and they went directly to expenses, it would be like this:
$393.00 military, $339.00 interest on national debt, $285.00 healthcare, $83 income security, $51 veterans' benefits, $48.00 education, $38.00 nutrition spending, $24.00 housing, $24.00 environmental protection, $6.00 job training, $210.00 everything else.
According to this pamphlet, the U.S. actually funds itself though,with loans from the International Monetary Fund.
Writing articles and giving opinions on them is more than bellyaching, it's getting and sharing ideas and information, seeing if there are solutions. And at times, bellyaching, because that's our right.
stevendedalus- thanks again for putting up this post.

There is incredible efficiency in the Post Office--except when you go there to mail a package. Nevertheless, they handle all thebusiness junk mail too well. FDR never had anything against charities, the high tax bracket generated huge donations. I'm afraid your deep belief in the states and/or business handling money effectively is a dream--they're just as bad and less trustworthy. I don't know what else is left, perhaps outsourcing the government--China might do a better job, certainly cheaper. Yet I'm not against small businesses bidding with a prospectus where they could do better in certain areas of government. Amen

The post office is a bad example because it is one of the few government services that has private sector commercial competition.

Glad you asked. The federal government pent 328 billion dollars, give or take last year. That's quite a bit more than the deficit

The deficit this year is greater than $328 billion.  It's closer to $500 billion. Hence the "half trillion Bush deficit" you see Democrats running around shrieking about.

Jeb:

1) MedicAID is a welfare program.

2) Medicare and Social security are welfare programs for most Americans in the sense that they get back vastly more than they put into it.

Item 1 is incontestable. Item 2 we just don't agree with. I'm not going to argue based on your premise because we don't agree on the premise. The Federal budget is about 2 trillion dollars.

Defense, as you stated is $328 billion.  We have a $300 billion to $500 billion (Depending on who you talk to, I looked it up on google and the number seems to be all over the place for 2003).

Now, doing the math, $328 billion out of 2 trillion is about 16% of the budget. Given that even if we totally eliminated defense spending we would (at best) cancel the deficit or at worst have a $200 billion deficit still, clearly federal money is mostly going somewhere else. 

Therefore, if you want to balance the budget, you have to suck it in and cut the programs where this money is going to -- including defense but also including the social programs.

Yes, but you still aren't answering my issue. The deductions for social security and medicare are not part of your income tax. So, they don't count in your little plan. Cutting social security and medicare would decrease what people pay to the government, but it wouldn't cut the income tax.

Cheers