Trump's Budget
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Monday, July 13, 2026 16:10
VIEWED: 32160
PAGE 1 of 32
I have not seen a lot of hubbub about this, but I did hear he had proposed one, or parts of one.
I have not posted this concept, and wanted to provide it for you all to ruminate upon, or comment upon.
What is a reasonable budget, at this point? How can we recover from so much excess from our addiction and bingeing of spending of the past 8-10 years?
We have gone a long time without any reasonable budget, just spending and borrowing ourselves into oblivion. How can any budget overcome the last 10 years of splurging? Any attempt to correct the trends will ignite the borrowing rate, and the onerous debt we have now (which seems like no big deal because the inflation rate and borrowing rate are miniscule) to a whallopping whale when the rate nudges up to very small.
So, my idea was to use the last reasonable budget as a yardmarker, a gauge to compare with, which would be the last budget which could have possibly been balanced. Although many spending priorities defeated this aim, all budgets since this have never even pretended to try.
This is the 2006 Federal Budget, before the Rock The Vote Libtards invaded DC and strived feverishly to wreck the economy and borrow our grandchildren's taxes to fund the snowflake welfare excesses now.
So, all of the Defense, NASA, and useful functions of Federal Government which have starved and whithered since then, should point out the highest funding they have had during the past 10 years, and that would be a good goal to have as their spending.
All of the bloated welfare, entitlements, government waste should be compared to their 2006 levels, and if they want more than that, need to justify it. They created their own inflation of their dollars, so the change in the dollar is not a valid excuse.
I am not sure if percentage of the total budget or dollar amount would be the better comparison. Perhaps both.
I have not checked out how Trump's budget compares yet.
His budget was one of my greatest fears of his reign - has he declared bankruptcy 4 or 5 times?
But some of what I have heard so far seems reassuring.
What say you?
Also, feel free to provide specifics of what amounts Trump has proposed, and comparison to FY 2006.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What is a reasonable budget, at this point?
Okay. The budget for the federal govt should be limited to what the federal govt is suppose to do, which is protect the states and their rights. That said, the feds also have a lot of money which isn't theirs, which they have to pay back
So. Mandatory spending.
Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, all of this is the citizen's money and has to be spent on them. Essentially, this is all insurance that came from your wages, civilian or military, and you didn't have a choice, but it is a product and the govt must deliver.
The other item here is the debt, best renegotiated, but there it is.
Discretionary.
I like to see military spending, because the military is a major investor in science and innovation. That said, I prefer to see it redirected to NASA or to infrastructure whenever possible so we can learn how to make faster trains and spaceships and not just bigger guns and bombs.
Other than that, I like to see investments in America, like grants higher education, I don't think the feds have any place in high school, as that's a free state program. But college has gotten out of control and while it should be fixed, we need an educated population in the meantime.
Any foreign aid should make sense, and not be a means of propping up some brutal regime. Any military matters should be covered in the budget, and not paid for by endless supplemental. I like corporate contracts for innovation and alternative energy, and any clean energy, but not to prop up dying corporations or dying industries energy or otherwise.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow.
I wasn't actually expecting a political dispute here, just a discussion of how to gauge whatever budget comes out of the White house or Congress, what would be a decent measuring stick to make comparisons to.
Quote:Agreed. National Defense and Border Protection. Some may claim Sec State as part of National Defense, but Hilliary's and Swiftboat Ketchup's bloated, useless, bungling, and treasonous legacy needs a rollback until Defense (military) catches up.
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What is a reasonable budget, at this point?
Okay. The budget for the federal govt should be limited to what the federal govt is suppose to do, which is protect the states and their rights.
Corollary obligation to Defense is Veterans Administration, which has been decimated and abused for the past 8 years, and covered up by the weaselly Dems.
Quote:What a hoot.
That said, the feds also have a lot of money which isn't theirs, which they have to pay back
So. Mandatory spending.
Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, all of this is the citizen's money and has to be spent on them. Essentially, this is all insurance that came from your wages, civilian or military, and you didn't have a choice, but it is a product and the govt must deliver.
Social Security is nothing more than the Ponzi Scheme promised by the Democrats, swallowed whole by gullible marks (aka Libtards and other lefty voters), and promulgated by the Dem Party as a way to suck in voters until the bill came due and the Dems would explain that it was all a fantasy, there would never be a payout. Somehow they have continued to juggle this past that time.
The gullibility of the American Libtards does not make this any sort of critical spending, it's just inflation.
Same for the Ponzi Schemes known as Medicare and Medicaid.
Some gullible people call these "insurance" but the Constitution does not place the business of Insurance under mandated duty of the Federal Government.
These are not not critical portions of the budget, in reasonable terms - but they are politically sensitive and charged.
Quote:Now you are on track.
The other item here is the debt, best renegotiated, but there it is.
How do you plan on "renegotiating" it? You asking Trump to loan out the Grand Canyon to China for better lending rates? Or what?
Quote:
Discretionary.
I like to see military spending, because the military is a major investor in science and innovation. That said, I prefer to see it redirected to NASA or to infrastructure whenever possible so we can learn how to make faster trains and spaceships and not just bigger guns and bombs.
You have a point, albeit misprioritized.
There are only 2 Departments within the Federal Government which return more value to the citizen tax-payer than the dollar spent. Last I heard DoD returned $1.06 and NASA returned $1.21 per Dollar spend. So, of course DOD was starved by Bobo, and he practically deleted NASA, telling us to hitch a ride on one of those exploding Russia Rockets.
Quote:This fluff has no place on the PRIORITY LIST of balancing the Budget and PAYING DOWN OBAMA'S DEBT.
Other than that, I like to see investments in America, like grants higher education, I don't think the feds have any place in high school, as that's a free state program. But college has gotten out of control and while it should be fixed, we need an educated population in the meantime.
The best way to address this in the Budget is to delete the Department of Educamation by eliminating it's funding.
Quote:
Any foreign aid should make sense, and not be a means of propping up some brutal regime. Any military matters should be covered in the budget, and not paid for by endless supplemental. I like corporate contracts for innovation and alternative energy, and any clean energy, but not to prop up dying corporations or dying industries energy oNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Wow.
I wasn't actually expecting a political dispute here, just a discussion of how to gauge whatever budget comes out of the White house or Congress, what would be a decent measuring stick to make comparisons to.
Pretty sure that;s what I was giving: what I expect to find in a sane budget.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
National Defense and Border Protection.
I'm going to disagree on the border. I think that border patrol is a state issue, and to place federal troops on state soil to patrol it in any way is a federal overreach and threat to state sovereignty. I see the logical fallacy of my own position, but understand the competing constitutionalist pov: if you allow federal troops to patrol states, where does that end? (and yeah, i know, state sovereignty has been slaughtered, but they haven't revoked the consittution yet, so we can still dream)
Quote:
Some may claim Sec State as part of National Defense, but Hilliary's and Swiftboat Ketchup's bloated, useless, bungling, and treasonous legacy needs a rollback until Defense (military) catches up.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure funding international terrorism to sponsor regime change doesn't fall within my frame of a sane budget.
Quote:It's part of the deal with hiring soldiers, so yes.
Corollary obligation to Defense is Veterans Administration, which has been decimated and abused for the past 8 years, and covered up by the weaselly Dems.
Quote:
What a hoot.
Social Security is nothing more than the Ponzi Scheme promised by the Democrats
Not disagreeing. However, as a budgetary measure, it's paid for with FICA, so if they're collecting FICA, they have to give people their money back. You can't take that FICA cash and spend it on something else. I know they've been doing it for years, but that's still outside of the frame of a sane budget. It's like the Danegeld.
Quote:
Same for the Ponzi Schemes known as Medicare and Medicaid.
Less sure about that. I think Medicaid, particularly, has its place as a state program. Sovereignty implies a state has a right to its own healthcare policy, which is one of the reasons obamacare was a disaster. (not defending mitt romney here, i think that's silly, but it really should be a state decision)
Medicare, yeah, it's similar, it's just their own money back again, as health insurance. Again, paid for by FICA. So, as a budget, yes, it should be there as long as the govt is still collecting the tax.
Quote:
These are not not critical portions of the budget, in reasonable terms - but they are politically sensitive and charged.
I disagree. They're directly connected to the tax that is levied for them. All budgetary items should be like this. Defense should be paid for by defense tax, etc. That would tie the hands of creative accounting politicians.
Quote:
Now you are on track.
How do you plan on "renegotiating" it? You asking Trump to loan out the Grand Canyon to China for better lending rates? Or what?
Debt falls into a couple of categories. First, there's money that we borrowed.
Like from China. The answer to that is we pay it back. If we can't do that we're no kind of capitalist.
Also, Bonds. Money borrowed from the American people, also has to be paid back.
Second, there's a type of assumed debt like the federal reserve, interagency
loan, etc. This needs to be written off. Some arrangement needs to be made to bury this.
Quote:
You have a point, albeit misprioritized.
There are only 2 Departments within the Federal Government which return more value to the citizen tax-payer than the dollar spent. Last I heard DoD returned $1.06 and NASA returned $1.21 per Dollar spend. So, of course DOD was starved by Bobo, and he practically deleted NASA, telling us to hitch a ride on one of those exploding Russia Rockets.
The exploding Russian
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The budget is a disgrace. But I don't see any political party making a stink about it, so why should I care?
Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So dop you agree that using FY2006 is one of the best points of comparison?
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Wow.
I wasn't actually expecting a political dispute here, just a discussion of how to gauge whatever budget comes out of the White house or Congress, what would be a decent measuring stick to make comparisons to.
Pretty sure that;s what I was giving: what I expect to find in a sane budget.
Quote:There ws no competing constitutionalist issue - they agreed that the Federation should protect the borders of the Federation from those outside the borders, not having anything to do with patrolling the borders within the Federation. Good that you admit to your failed logic.Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
National Defense and Border Protection.
I'm going to disagree on the border. I think that border patrol is a state issue, and to place federal troops on state soil to patrol it in any way is a federal overreach and threat to state sovereignty. I see the logical fallacy of my own position, but understand the competing constitutionalist
Quote:So there are the core sectors which need to have budget increases, or immunity from reduction.
pov: if you allow federal troops to patrol states, where does that end? (and yeah, i know, state sovereignty has been slaughtered, but they haven't revoked the consittution yet, so we can still dream)Quote:
Some may claim Sec State as part of National Defense, but Hilliary's and Swiftboat Ketchup's bloated, useless, bungling, and treasonous legacy needs a rollback until Defense (military) catches up.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure funding international terrorism to sponsor regime change doesn't fall within my frame of a sane budget.Quote:It's part of the deal with hiring soldiers, so yes.
Corollary obligation to Defense is Veterans Administration, which has been decimated and abused for the past 8 years, and covered up by the weaselly Dems.
Quote:which goes into the General Fund, and then Dems steal from the General Fund, and like all Ponzi Schemes, there comes a time when the suckers lose out. There has never been a SS Lockbox. The SocSec has never been fully funded through any FICA or other contribution - it is strictly paid out as a bribe from Dems to gullible voters. We don't need this hokum now.Quote:
What a hoot.
Social Security is nothing more than the Ponzi Scheme promised by the Democrats
Not disagreeing. However, as a budgetary measure, it's paid for with FICA, so if they're collecting FICA,
Quote:WHAT??? You agree it has never worked and will never work, and then say we should start making it work now? THAT is not sane.
they have to give people their money back. You can't take that FICA cash and spend it on something else. I know they've been doing it for years, but that's still outside of the frame of a sane budget. It's like the Danegeld.
Quote:State programs are fine, just keep it completely out of the FEDERAL BUDGET.Quote:
Same for the Ponzi Schemes known as Medicare and Medicaid.
Less sure about that. I think Medicaid, particularly, has its place as a state program.
Quote:refer to 2 above points.
Sovereignty implies a state has a right to its own healthcare policy, which is one of the reasons obamacare was a disaster. (not defending mitt romney here, i think that's silly, but it really should be a state decision)
Medicare, yeah, it's similar, it's just their own money back again, as health insurance. Again, paid for by FICA. So, as a budget, yes, it should be there as long as the govt is still collecting the tax.
Quote:
These are not not critical portions of the budget, in reasonable terms - but they are politically sensitive and charged.
I disagree. They're directly connected to the tax that is levied for them.
There is no tax levied for them - the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
you agree that using FY2006 is one of the best points of comparison?
It's been f'ed for a while. perscription d was 2006, energy policy was f'ed after '05. I think clinton budgets were pretty good, in spite of not liking the result.Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
There ws no competing constitutionalist issue - they agreed that the Federation should protect the borders of the Federation from those outside the borders, not having anything to do with patrolling the borders within the Federation. Good that you admit to your failed logic.
JSF,
re Mexico, it's an issue. US interference in Mexican sovereignty is also an issue. (fast and furious, etc. ignoring how we got new mexico in the first place.) If fed troops are in NM, that's a violation of NM rights. States have their own immigration policies. Even West Virginia has an immigration policy. I know both parties in Texas oppose the national policy, and also California. I think a solution should be worked out, like a state residency permit, the right to live and work in Texas, for example. But if I were one of those former mexican states, it would bug me to have federal agents harrassing my spanish speaking population. I'd consider it a federal overreach.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure funding international terrorism to sponsor regime change doesn't fall within my frame of a sane budget.Quote:
So there are the core sectors which need to have budget increases, or immunity from reduction.
Oh, he can scuttle the whole federal govt for all I care. If Ford lays off workers, they don't get to scuttle the pension plan. Same here. If we owe things to the VA, etc, that still has to be settled, even if it's just a promise, because people took those jobs.Quote:
which goes into the General Fund, and then Dems steal from the General Fund, and like all Ponzi Schemes, there comes a time when the suckers lose out. There has never been a SS Lockbox. The SocSec has never been fully funded through any FICA or other contribution - it is strictly paid out as a bribe from Dems to gullible voters. We don't need this hokum now.
Then get rid of the tax. But they're stuck together. Can't just collect the tax and then do whatever with the money. Quote:
WHAT??? You agree it has never worked and will never work, and then say we should start making it work now? THAT is not sane.
It's a tax. it's collected on the grounds that it will be paid back. it's not, but it has to go in some way toward what it's collected for, or the tax needs to go. try convincing a govt to get rid of a tax.Quote:
State programs are fine, just keep it completely out of the FEDERAL BUDGET.
Unless you want to take the FICA money and allocate it rather than have a national program.Quote:
No, it's not. FICA is a 15% payroll tax. It's not realistic to call it an investment program because you can't opt out of it and it won't be paid back, at least, not at a profit.
There is no tax levied for them - there is no accounting formula, flow of accountable funds. That is a fantasy, stop sticking your head in the sand.Quote:
Now you are on track.
How do you plan on "renegotiating" it? You asking Trump to loan out the Grand Canyon to China for better lending rates? Or what?
Debt falls into a couple of categories. First, there's money that we borrowed.
Like from China. The answer to that is we pay it back.Quote:
NOW you are catching on. WE need to pay down the Federal Debt. To do that we need to eliminate the Federal Budget Deficit, reduce the Federal Budget, reduce the Federal Spending, allow the Revenues to increase and overtake the spending.
you might hate this suggestion, but if you want a solution that fixes this problem, there's a really simple one: grant M4 issuing power on a 1:1. I mean, we already have the M2 fractional reserve lending o
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
you agree that using FY2006 is one of the best points of comparison?
It's been f'ed for a while. perscription d was 2006, energy policy was f'ed after '05. I think clinton budgets were pretty good, in spite of not liking the result.Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
There ws no competing constitutionalist issue - they agreed that the Federation should protect the borders of the Federation from those outside the borders, not having anything to do with patrolling the borders within the Federation. Good that you admit to your failed logic.
JSF,
re Mexico, it's an issue. US interference in Mexican sovereignty is also an issue. (fast and furious, etc. ignoring how we got new mexico in the first place.) If fed troops are in NM, that's a violation of NM rights. States have their own immigration policies. Even West Virginia has an immigration policy. I know both parties in Texas oppose the national policy, and also California. I think a solution should be worked out, like a state residency permit, the right to live and work in Texas, for example. But if I were one of those former mexican states, it would bug me to have federal agents harrassing my spanish speaking population. I'd consider it a federal overreach.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure funding international terrorism to sponsor regime change doesn't fall within my frame of a sane budget.Quote:
So there are the core sectors which need to have budget increases, or immunity from reduction.
Oh, he can scuttle the whole federal govt for all I care. If Ford lays off workers, they don't get to scuttle the pension plan. Same here. If we owe things to the VA, etc, that still has to be settled, even if it's just a promise, because people took those jobs.Quote:
which goes into the General Fund, and then Dems steal from the General Fund, and like all Ponzi Schemes, there comes a time when the suckers lose out. There has never been a SS Lockbox. The SocSec has never been fully funded through any FICA or other contribution - it is strictly paid out as a bribe from Dems to gullible voters. We don't need this hokum now.
Then get rid of the tax. But they're stuck together. Can't just collect the tax and then do whatever with the money.Quote:
WHAT??? You agree it has never worked and will never work, and then say we should start making it work now? THAT is not sane.
It's a tax. it's collected on the grounds that it will be paid back. it's not, but it has to go in some way toward what it's collected for, or the tax needs to go. try convincing a govt to get rid of a tax.Quote:
State programs are fine, just keep it completely out of the FEDERAL BUDGET.
Unless you want to take the FICA money and allocate it rather than have a national program.Quote:No, it's not. FICA is a 15% payroll tax. It's not realistic to call it an investment program because you can't opt out of it and it won't be paid back, at least, not at a profit.
There is no tax levied for them - there is no accounting formula, flow of accountable funds. That is a fantasy, stop sticking your head in the sand.Quote:
Now you are on track.
How do you plan on "renegotiating" it? You asking Trump to loan out the Grand Canyon to China for better lending rates? Or what?
Debt falls into a couple of categories. First, there's money that we borrowed.
Like from China. The answer to that is we pay it back.Quote:
NOW you are catching on. WE need to pay down the Federal Debt. To do that we need to eliminate the Federal Budget Deficit, reduce the Federal Budget, reduce the Federal Spending, allow the Revenues to increase and overtake the spending.
you might hate this suggestion, but if you want a solution that fixes this problem, there's a really simple one: grant M4 issuing power on a 1:1. I mean, we aNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Bond holders did not purchase 9 Trillion Dollars, or loan it to us - that was foreign countries, namely our enemies.
As Ron Paul said: Then we have to pay our enemies back.
But you know numerically, it's bond holders over foreign debt by leaps and bounds. Still, we have to pay back China, who isn't really an enemy. If for no other reason than that if we don't, our word is worth nothing
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bumpity
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME