In response to:

Sources: Democrats' New Budget May Actually Accelerate Spending

Buck O Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 1:57 PM
The hussein will chase a "balanced approach" but not a balanced budget:
worker Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 4:34 PM
Balanced to the llibs mean higher taxes balanced with higher spending, NOT spending cuts.
SMyles Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 2:23 PM
Maybe Ryan knew he would get laughed off the stage with another balanced budget in 30 years. Or was it 40? So now it's what, 10. How about within one election cycle?
Buck O Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 2:37 PM
How about you get the votes for it?
Chicago Undercover Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 2:37 PM
Hell, how about THIS year?

I mean, seriously, if you spend more than you earn then you're not adhering to your budget. Simple as that. A budget means...."this is how much I have available to spend" and you don't soend one penny more than that.

Unless, of course, you're a big government bureaucrat.
psydoc Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 3:09 PM
I'm for this year, too. There is plenty of room to cut. If they had any will to do so, we could not only have a balanced budget this year, there could be a small surplus. Any surplus must go to pay down the debt.
Buck O Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 3:39 PM
You're talking about two different things - the yearly deficit vs. the total deficit Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton balanced the yearly deficit simply by making yearly spending equal yearly revenues. To balance the total deficit, which is $16.5 trillion, we'll have to make yearly revenues EXCEED yearly spending to pay it down, as it were. There's no way we can do that in one year, because our current total deficit exceeds GNP, which means even if we taxed every penny from the economy and spent it on nothing but deficit reduction, it still wouldn't cover it.
Bufa Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 4:18 PM
The 16.5 is our debt.
That is where all the confusion comes in for most.

Bear in mind that this is the same crew whose most recent "deficit reduction" plan increased the deficit by tens of billions, who are trying to redefine tax increases as "spending cuts," and whose idea of a "balanced approach" doesn't actually involve balancing the budget.  Still, inventing close to $2 trillion in phony, fig-leaf deficit reductions is a pretty tall order.  Yesterday I briefly called attention to a piece in The Hill that sketched out the broad contours of Senate Democrats' forthcoming budget proposal -- their...