What Would Be Your National Budget?

This is a question that I always think about whenever reports of the National Budget comes out. Except this time, I am asking all of you to give your two cents about how the money should be spent. Would it be far different from what has been proposed? Or do you support what has been done?

[edit on 7-2-2007 by ceci2006]

If I was in charge there wouldnt be a national budget. There wouldnt be a federal entity at all. If the states wanted to get together and use their state level tax spoils to accomplish something theyre free to do it as long as the state represenatives and the people they represent vote for it but federal, nope.

No federal taxation = no money for the fed to throw away. My money and yours.

If I had to answer, however, I doubt I could. I havent read the thousands of pages necessary to claim I am properly versed in all the aspects of the federal government that require funding. Im certainly sure the President hasnt either. No one man could know or understand all the facets and nuances of the bloated and monsterous fed that need a place at the public funded nipple to suckle.

Maybe my answer is a cop-out but I stand firm, no fed.

If there was any one single thing I can just make happened, it would be a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. tht way, now matter what future politicians spend money on, we will always know that our nation's debt will be under control.

First of all, thank you very much for your answers to my question. I think one of the most pressing problems in America today has to do with the allocation of money and where it is being spent. And, to be better citizens, a discussion of where the government spends our tax dollars is quite relevant, especially these days.

There are several things that I would like discuss in reply to your comments:

1)Justin, thank you for bringing up the proposition for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is one the things that has constantly been on my mind since the days when the government surplus was spent by the current Administration. I feel that some belt-tightening has to happen here in order to help America stay out of debt. Most importantly, the country must not be a "debtor nation". Half of the problems about federal money is the fact that they waste quite a few dollars and don't account for it. Furthermore, some of the money spent within the halls of government are used for reasons not benefitting the country.

As much as I would like to believe that there would be enough support for such an amendment, it will never fly. Our politicians are way too greedy when it comes to federal funds. They want to keep their perks and they don't want the public to know about it because of the shame attached to wasted money.

However, the future is not written in stone, I would hope that there are some politicians that would entertain this idea. But, if they do, they would have to put themselves on the line to propose such a suggestion.

2)thisguyrightthere, I think that enough of the country is fed up with the waste of money by the government. However, there is no way that the government can survive without any federal funds. Some sort of taxation must occur so that the government (at the federal level) runs smoothly and that the institutiions within the expanse of the nation are well supported. However, that does not excuse the abuse that the current Administration has employed on dwindling away the surplus given to them six years ago.

The point of contention is whether the people of America truly do have a say over how the money is spent. I suppose we could write our Congresspeople and demand the change in spending practices. Accountability must be demanded. If not, they will continue to spend more and more money without caring how the rest of us are affected.

And believe me, we feel it in more ways than most--from the rise of inflation to the costs to keep oil in our cars. If only the politicians felt it as badly as we do.


Other than that, I am still thinking about how the National Budget would be used if I could control where the funds would go.

Please keep on contributing your thoughts and any information you'd like to share on this topic.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by ceci2006]

As a political strategist, I can tell that there really is more than one way to sell a concept. Let's remember that much of ross Perot's appeal during his aborted run at the White House happened to be his exposure of government waste.

There are NOT many private sector watch dog groups that report on Federal waste and fraud. The total number of these groups has declined since the 1980's. Even so, they are out there. Now, here comes the political strategy part.

As you run for office, go out and cherry-pick the most politically damning of these examples and do three things. a) Make light of them in your public speaking. b) Ask you opponents direct and unambiguous questions through the media about how they would deal with these issues. c) Pledge yourself to a full investigation of the matter when you are elected.

Remember that language is a weapon in politics.

Fact-based observations which document other people's greed or incompetence--especially when they impact the greater good--are pitches that go right to the voting public.

The most devastating campaign tactic that's not a smear is the direct and unambiguous question. When your opposition answers vaguely, they make themselves look bad.

Pledging to investigate is not a preciise fix, and it frees you from having to say exactly how you'd deal with problems you've outlined. Obviously, the opposition's best tactic is to try and pin you down to exactly "how" you'd fix these problems, but...there are ways of dealing with this.

Well, without knowing how much money I would be able to spend,
I can not say exact amounts, however, the things I would spend
the budget on are as follows.

-NASA/Space Exploration/Rewarding Private Space Firms 20%
-Education 20%
-Military 10%
-Social programs 30%
-Science & Technology 20%

I'll have t ostand on what I said before. The question is just too broad for anything else unless you want to contest items line by line.

i am prepared to be 100% honest with the members of this board
i have absolutely no idea what i would do with the federal budget

probably do a small cut in the military "black budget" and some tiny cuts in military reasearch budgets and use the leftover money to solve hunger problems

I would cut everything except what is in the constitution that the federal government is supposed to do. Basically all the feds are supposed to do is collect taxes and support a military entity to protect the citizens. I would go back to the days of state and local control of all things that affect it's citizens, when it comes down to brass tacs anything the feds get their fingers in gets screwed up because they try to set a national standard, but as you go to different parts of the country life and cultures are so different that it just makes a huge mess. So i say get rid of the bloated federal budget and give the bulk of the money to the states.

Having been a member of Federal civil service, I can tell you that the amount of waste that goes in is extreme. At one point, I had very minor authority over some spedning, and I got called on the carpet for being so frugal. Why? Because there's a "thing" in Federal service that says you've got to use all of your annual budget or you may risk being cut next fiscal year. you never ask for less becuase Congress is a fickle witch and you might get cut no matter what yu do. Building in a little fat is smart, so say-eth the bureaucrats.

There's a lot that would have to be done that would fix this. All of it is the stuff of sausage. You've heard it. Government and sausage. Two things that you never want to see being made. As it stands right now, the bureaucratic culture does not reward spending less. It rewards spending more ,even if there is no reasion for it.