Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When pushed on the details, it's best to resort to vague generalities. Nevertheless, the job gets harder if the budget is less than a quarter of that size, because now you're talking chopping more like a fifth of the total outlays ($420 billion/$2319 billion).
And the only reason we're having this argument at all is because you were pretending that there are inefficiencies and pork that you can cut to close the $420 billion Bush deficit. Give. It. Up.*
*Unlike AG I don't care that (e.g.) pork isn't going to be cut. I just think it's silly for you to pretend that the federal budget is full of unspecified waste that can be cut to offset Bush's spending.
|
I haven't had time to do the research on this this week, so allow me to talk in generalities for now. Each year we consistently raise spending in nearly all line items of the budget. Typically, this ranges somewhere between 4-8%. With inflation being essentially zero over the last 3 or 4 years, don't you think we can afford to not raise spending AND not harm "services."* I'm even willing to put the military to this standard.
And what do you mean by offset Bush's spending? Certainly I am not a proponent of his spending choices. I am viewing this in relation to reveneus.
*And when I say raise, I mean a real raise, not just and increase in the percentage increase from the prior year.
