Republicans making wonderful cuts in the budget... or are they?

[Little-Acorn]

We've all heard that they are cutting five million here, twenty million there, and hey look, a stupendous TWO BILLION DOLLARS cut over there!!!

But... are any of them actually cuts?

Will they result in next year's budget being smaller?

Or did the Democrats merely say, "Well, here's last year's budget, we're going to request that next year's budget be 10% bigger in all departments, as usual. But since you Republicans want cuts, we'll only make next year's budget 9.9% bigger than last year's."

How likely is it, that we've fallen for the oldest trick in the book?

Looks to me like there are no cuts in the budget. There are only increases. In every department. They're just slightly smaller increases than the Dems originally wanted.

Suckers.

Business as usual in Congress, I guess. And nothing changes.

Government will be bigger next year than it was this year. And even bigger next year, and the next, and the next..............

 

[Dr.Who]

Acorn, this is a fantastic topic though I think we should be examining the roles of both republicans and democrats in this. IMO, if there is an "us" and a "them" it is more likely to be citizens versus congressmen.

But your opening has me wondering. You started by saying that the republicans have clamed to be making a lot of cuts. I have not heard that anyone has made any cuts yet. There may be proposals but I don't think any bills to cut spending have passed yet.

But since this is your thread I will assume you know more than I. Maybe we could start by discussing some claim to have made a cut. Do you have any links?

 

[dogtowner]

starting point is return to 2008, then cuts from there.

 

[Dr.Who]

starting point is return to 2008, then cuts from there.

I like your kind of thinking. If I may make a change in what you said...

How about we start back at 1778 and see what expenses are permitted from there?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I like your kind of thinking. If I may make a change in what you said...

How about we start back at 1778 and see what expenses are permitted from there?

OK well you just cut the military budget to just about zero..Happy now?
also all the Federal highways will be worthless in a like 2 years up here as they fall apart...

Also the CIA is done.

no more FBI

when will you guys get it in your head....its not 1778?

 

[Little-Acorn]

I like your kind of thinking. If I may make a change in what you said...

How about we start back at 1778 and see what expenses are permitted from there?

You probably meant 1791, the year the Bill of Rights was added to the 1789 Constitution, right?

POS's usual careful misunderstanding of your point aside, it's not a bad start. National Defense spending was the majority of the Federal budget back then, foreign relations was a lot of the rest, and income taxes (and automatic income tax withholding) were not only illegal, they were inconceivable. Same for virtually all the alphabet agencies (EPA, ATF, OSHA, FBI etc.) - if people wanted something like that done by government, they had the states do it... and then only when the Constituution permitted even that. The government then wasn't perfect, but it mostly had the right idea - something it hasn't has since at least the 1930s.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You probably meant 1791, the year the Bill of Rights was added to the 1789 Constitution, right?

POS's usual careful misunderstanding of your point aside, it's not a bad start. National Defense spending was the majority of the Federal budget back then, foreign relations was a lot of the rest, and income taxes (and automatic income tax withholding) were not only illegal, they were inconceivable. Same for virtually all the alphabet agencies (EPA, ATF, OSHA, FBI etc.) - if people wanted something like that done by government, they had the states do it... and then only when the Constituution permitted even that. The government then wasn't perfect, but it mostly had the right idea - something it hasn't has since at least the 1930s.

yes its really gone hill for the US since the 30's....what with us now only far and away the most powerful nation on the planet...and of course...there are reasons those things changed...

 

[Dr.Who]

You probably meant 1791, the year the Bill of Rights was added to the 1789 Constitution, right?

POS's usual careful misunderstanding of your point aside, it's not a bad start. National Defense spending was the majority of the Federal budget back then, foreign relations was a lot of the rest, and income taxes (and automatic income tax withholding) were not only illegal, they were inconceivable. Same for virtually all the alphabet agencies (EPA, ATF, OSHA, FBI etc.) - if people wanted something like that done by government, they had the states do it... and then only when the Constituution permitted even that. The government then wasn't perfect, but it mostly had the right idea - something it hasn't has since at least the 1930s.

Well, I originally meant 1778 the year it was ratified. But upon researching it more I see that your date 1789 was the year it took effect. That would be a more accurate starting point.

Should I mean 1791 the year the Bill of Rights was added? I don't think so. The limits on government existed in 1789 and the rights listed in the Bill of Rights also existed back in 1789. Those rights were just listed in 1791. I think when we are discussing the power to tax the more relevant date is the year that the limits on the power of gov took effect.

But thanks for the history lesson and if I am mistaken still and 1791 is the better date I am listening.

 

[Dr.Who]

OK well you just cut the military budget to just about zero..Happy now?
also all the Federal highways will be worthless in a like 2 years up here as they fall apart...

Also the CIA is done.

no more FBI

when will you guys get it in your head....its not 1778?

Thanks for bringing those up. You have valid questions.

The constitution puts no limit on defense spending. There would need to be no cut.

Federal highways could just as easily have been built by states ( they would have a different name of course. Probably something like interstate highways). They all have access to concrete. And they do cooperate with each other all the time. And with a little bit of research I discovered that the federal highway system was authorized by the Federal-aid highway System Act of 1956. And since there were a whole lot of interstate roads before 1956 it would seem that the states were doing just fine. So why was there a federal act of 1956? Two reasons: 1) auto makers lobbied for one 2) it was argued that we needed federal highways for national defense. IF #2 is correct a federal highway is constitutional under the constitution that was written in the 1700's.

CIA, FBI? I didn't know that they were unconstitutional. But since you listed them do you want to share something with us?

I did a quick search and it seems that the CIA is authorized as an agency that performs defense functions. That sounds constitutional to me since the fed is responsible to provide for the defense of the country.
http://74.6.238.252/search/srpcache...8&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=xRJSSLhFlJROvL5F7BV_zA--

I would guess that the FBI is constitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause. If there can be any federal law at all - and there can. Then there would need to be a federal police.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Thanks for bringing those up. You have valid questions.

The constitution puts no limit on defense spending. There would need to be no cut.

Federal highways could just as easily have been built by states. They all have access to concrete. And they do cooperate with each other all the time.

CIA, FBI? I didn't know that they were unconstitutional. But since you listed them do you want to share something with us?

I did a quick search and it seems that the CIA is authorized as an agency that performs defense functions. That sounds constitutional to me since the fed is responsible to provide for the defense of the country.
http://74.6.238.252/search/srpcache...8&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=xRJSSLhFlJROvL5F7BV_zA--

I would guess that the FBI is constitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause.

I never said they where not constitutional...But they also did not exist at the time...Social Security, Medicare, Federal Highways...also are constitutional...So is the EPA, OSCHA...ext....Just because some may claim they are not...does not change that....there at times, was alot of debate about even having a National Standing Army back then....

 

[Dr.Who]

I never said they where not constitutional...But they also did not exist at the time...Social Security, Medicare, Federal Highways...also are constitutional...So is the EPA, OSCHA...ext....Just because some may claim they are not...does not change that....there at times, was alot of debate about even having a National Standing Army back then....

Thanks for bringing up the distinction between what merely did not exist at the time and what is constitutional.

Some may claim that many things which are constitutional are not, but that is not what I claimed. In my initial post I did not actually make the case that any particular expense was or was not constitutional. Do you not agree that without debating right now which are constitutional and which are not that we should return to a time when only constitutional expenses are approved?

I suggested that we start from the viewpoint of only approving expenses that are constitutional without naming which things those were. That should be an easy starting point for us to begin with. I am not suggesting that we return to a time when all those departments did not exist merely because they had not been created yet.

Once we agree that we should only spend on things that are constitutional then we can debate specifically which of those expenses are actually constitutional or not. Maybe in a new thread?

 

[dogtowner]

I like your kind of thinking. If I may make a change in what you said...

How about we start back at 1778 and see what expenses are permitted from there?

even better