If tea party members and conservatives are really concerned about the deficit...

Tea party members and conservatives (if there is a difference) seem really concerned about the budget deficit, while at the same time they do not want the government to touch "their" social security and "their" medicare. They also do not want the government to cut defense spending because that is unpatriotic.

If we look at the above pie chart, we see defense spending, social security, and medicare consist of over 60% of federal spending. These numbers will only increase as the baby boomers grow older.

If one is truly a fiscal conservative, they will support measures which would cut social security and medicare spending. A true conservative would support cuts to the military.

So you post a 2011 proposed budget that was uploaded on wikipedia by "Anyone". This proposed budget porbably has factored in the following costs:

HCR bill
The Student Loan Takeover bill
GM running costs
Fannie and Freddie running costs
"Mandatory Costs" = All those new federal employees we are hiring and don't want to fire.



Tea Party members do realize the current and the past expenditures are unsustainable. Entitle programs like Social Security and Medicare need changes or to be cut completely. While you cut those programs, just payback all of the money that was invested by the people who are being cut. I think the Social Security & Medicare would survive if every administration stopped treating it like a personal piggy bank.


[edit on 10-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

reply to post by prionace glauca


Did you BOTHER to read? The pie chart represents 2009 spending.

The source is given. Office of Management and Budget:

www.whitehouse.gov...
(Warning: Lots of big numbers and complex data.)

It is condensed to pie chart form for dummies. Your additions were not included in 2009.

Nice deflection attempt but no cigar silly.


[edit on 10-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by prionace glauca

 

Did you BOTHER to read? The pie chart represents 2009 spending.

The source is given. Office of Management and Budget:

www.whitehouse.gov...
(Warning: Lots of big numbers and complex data.)

It is condensed to pie chart form for dummies. Your additions were not included in 2009.

Nice deflection attempt but no cigar silly.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

Oh my,the OMB department. Sure we can believe them just like the CBO that is quietly going around saying we were wrong on the HCR deficit numbers and we were also wrong on the Doctor Fix Bill defecit numbers.

Brace your self, the below article can be a little complicated to read. I would suggest you find a adult with reading capabilities.

Estimate for 10-Year Deficit Raised to $9 Trillion

The Obama administration’s Office of Management and Budget raised its 10-year tally of deficits expected through 2019 to $9.05 trillion, nearly $2 trillion more than it projected in February. That would represent 5.1 percent of the economy’s estimated gross domestic product for the decade, a higher level than is generally considered healthy.

The Congressional Budget Office, which unlike the administration did not account for the president’s policy proposals in its latest report, increased its projection of deficits over the next decade. Absent any changes in law, it said the deficit would rise to $7.1 trillion, from $4.4 trillion in March.

I would suggest you drop that Kool Aid down.

reply to post by kinda kurious


The link says it's FY 2007, the image itself says "OMB - 2011 Budget" on it, and you say it's from 2009. So which is it?

Edit: Ok, I see where you got 2009 from. Don't ask how I missed the big numbers at the top of the image cause I can't explain it. My question stands though. There are three separate dates on the image and in the URL, so which one is accurate?

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Jenna]

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


What a flaccid attempt. How long did you prepare for this thread?

This data seems to support OP's claim:

Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security....

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits. Others could not explain the contradiction.

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

Source

Last quote a hoot!

[edit on 10-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

The link says it's FY 2007, the image itself says "OMB - 2011 Budget" on it, and you say it's from 2009. So which is it?

I'm not a rocket scientist, but based on the BIG HONKING TITLE my guess 2009.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6caacaf59324.jpg[/atsimg]

Perhaps in your haste to pounce your vision became blurry.

Or perhaps hot flashes.



[edit on 10-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


I edited my post once I realized that I somehow missed the big numbers up top. Like I said in my edit, don't ask how I missed them cause I can't explain it.

edit:

Perhaps in your haste to pounce your vision became blurry.

Or hot flashes.

Momentary blindness I think. It is hot in here now that you mention it though...

But I wasn't pouncing, I was momentarily confused.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Jenna]

reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf


You got me...my numbers are all messed up! Please accept my apologies everyone! It turns out medicare, social security, and defense spending only make up 0.1% of all government spending. The Iraq War only cost $50, while it costs the federal government $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 a year to welfare to each person that crosses the border illegally.

reply to post by Jenna


You'll have to address sources etc. toward OP. It is not my thread.

About that light headed woozy feeling, I've been told I have that affect on the ladies.
I kid, but you already know that.

Keep those arrows in your quiver my dear. Ouch you keep them thangs so sharp. My scab is finally about to fall off and hopefully I can sit comfortably once again.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by prionace glauca


From your link:

the administration was quick to say that much of the projected deficit was a legacy of the Bush administration and that the Obama administration was committed to restoring budget discipline when the economy recovers.

“Over all, it underscores the dire fiscal situation that we inherited and the need for serious steps to put our nation back on a sustainable fiscal path,” Peter R. Orszag

And since you like charts:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d8469f24306.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by kinda kurious


I saw '2009' in your post before I saw it on the image. That's why I directed my question to you.

And yes, you have an effect.. Don't know if I'd call it a light-headed woozy one, but it's an effect.


___________

Back on topic with me, I can't explain how anyone else reconciles a desire for smaller government with a desire to leave social security and medicare alone. I can only explain how I reconcile the two.

With the amount of fraud running through both programs, it is entirely possible to rework them so that they aren't as susceptible to fraud thereby reducing the amount of funding they require and the size of the programs without preventing people who truly do need help from getting it. I don't see this as being in conflict with my desire for smaller government. Take those programs out of the federal governments control and put the states in charge of them and claims of conflict make no sense.

As far as the military spending goes, I'd love to see a lot of those peace-keeping missions ended. If we've spent 10, 15, or 20 years in a country, I'd say we've spent enough of our own money keeping the peace and it's time for them to do it on their own. Some of them may be necessary, but I'd be willing to wager that quite a few of them are not.

And yes, I'd like to see the wars ended as well before someone asks why I haven't mentioned them. The problem there is that we effectively broke Afghanistan and Iraq more so than they already were. It's our moral responsibility to fix what we broke and help them get to where they can handle the insurgents on their own. If we pull out too soon, they'll just be over-ran and more innocent people will die.

To me, smaller government isn't just about less spending though. It's also about less government intrusion into areas they have no business involving themselves in. It's about making it clear to the federal government that they are not the ones with all the power, the states are. It's about making it clear to our 'elected officials' that the Constitution is not just an easily dismissed piece of paper. It's the foundation of our countries laws and the federal government is subject to the limits laid out in it at all times. Not just when it's convenient for them.

Being that I am a fiscal conservative, I guess I could answer your questions.

Forced socialism is theft. Period!

Since the SS is broke and the Medicare/Medicaid systems are broke, they are now Ponzii Schemes. They were never meant to be responsible investment vehicles. When was the last time our government actually had an investment besides their slaves that made any profit?

Let us work out a solution shall we? US government retirement, take that and use that to pay off the SS and Medicare future entitlements for anyone over 50. Those that are over 50 that want to pay in and receive in the future benefits, continue to pay in at a rise in their own rates to double what they pay in now. For everyone else, eliminate it completely.

Cut government bureaucracies to 10% of their current size and tell the States to run their own States.

Pull back all US forces to our country with only a few bases strategically placed for an actual war, not the policing of the empire.

Eliminate all usury fees at all banks. Eliminate the fed and return to a commodity based currency. Eliminate ALL funding of ALL foreign governments.

Close our borders, all income taxes repealed. All assets of said federal reserve entities and their officials seized for the payment on a bankruptcy deal with US creditors. This will be a one time payment to clear the debt.

Oh, and for this thread, just another hit piece on the TPM and fiscal conservatives?

Well, these hit pieces will be increasing. Gotta have the koolaid fresh.

Now, one question needs to ask oneself, who caused all of these problems?

I am thinking Shakespeare had an idea.

Does anyone know to what I am referring?

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

...........

[edit on 10-5-2010 by TaxpayersUnleashed]

The Republican Vs Democrat Debt chart does not surprise me one bit. It is so obvious that every time a republican is in office, the American economy suffers ENORMOUSLY, and NONE of this missing money it is going towards benefitting the HARDEST working classes of this country (middle, and lower class workers). Republicans HELP the wealthy, and only the wealthy, PERIOD. This is just more proof which anyone with a brain and eyes can witness EVERY time a republican is in office. Absolute CRIMINALS they are. Then when the democrats provide a helping hand to these hard workers when they are down after suffering another Republican in office, the idiot repubs start with the nonsense, lies, and accusations of too much government spending. Republicans and their supporters are a SICK bunch.

reply to post by Captain_Sense


Yes, the Dems have changed oh so much from the last 40 years of control parameters.

Yes, they are your savior.

Dem Repub divide and conquer much?

Originally posted by endisnighe

Now, one question needs to ask oneself, who caused all of these problems?

I am thinking Shakespeare had an idea.

Does anyone know to what I am referring?

What is: "A plague on both your houses?"

What did I win?



[edit on 10-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


Thanks, that works. Not the one I was thinking of, but fits well with my ire.

I was thinking more of the ones representing both houses.

reply to post by endisnighe


Was it uttered by King Richard perchance, involving a guillotine?

non essential line #2

[edit on 10-5-2010 by kinda kurious]